The motivation to do good is God.

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Some who glorify evil imply that the only motivation to do good is lost when God is not in the picture. In a way this is true, because, as Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches … apart from Me you can do nothing.” A universe without God a) would not exist, b) I would rather not exist at all in (I lost my motivation when I lost faith). But, the motivation, from Nietzsche’s perspective (the first dude to say that “God is dead” thing), is fear (not reverential respect, but fear of punishment) of God, of hell. However, this is not what motivates a saved Christian. What motivates a saved Christian is that God loves us no matter what (that is all He was saying by dying for us). Evil (messing things up) is such a waste of time once you “find your motivation”. There are those (secular humanists) who claim motivation without God, but… you know… I don’t know how they do it… or if they even do (maybe their view of good is skewed (sp?)?). I just know… I personally never had that motivation after I lost faith [I became selfish to the point of narcissism (sp?)], until He found me. That isn’t to say that I only ever do good since He saved me. It’s just to say that, when I do good, it isn’t motivated by fear of punishment, but by God’s love. And, when I feel bad about doing evil (sinning), it isn’t because I’m afraid of punishment, it is because I miss the closeness to God that I feel when I am living the way that makes Him smile.

God is the source of meaning (not all meaning, just the meaning that counts here). As the source, He requires nothing outside Himself. We require something outside ourself, we need God, because He is the source and we are not. More to the point, He made us that way, so that we could be loved; could love (because He’s Love).

Why can’t we be our own source of meaning (love)? May as well ask why we can’t stop needing love. I used to find it really odd… that everything seems right in the world if that “special somebody” is around to pass the time… I used to think it was weird that we couldn’t get along fine all by our lonesome… strange that we needed others and couldn’t get that need met inside ourself…. why it hurts so much when that need is not met… so much that we can become numb to pain in self-defense. This is a powerful need. It is how it is… and it is that way for a reason… not by chance.

Posted in Divine Essentialism, Golden Rule | Leave a comment

Science Experiment with Faith

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

I wonder…could you do an experiment… see how easy/hard it is to “walk the walk” of a Christian (not the hypocritical Christian, but your best idea of the Christian who genuinely loves and follows Christ), depending on God to help you through it…? If so, I want you to read my “faith vs. works” thread first if you try that.

And/or why not do an experiment and pray for a month (or longer) and see what happens? Don’t just ask for stuff…. talk to Him about everything…. vent all your angry questions to Him… and, if you have time, write it down… that way you’ll have evidence when your prayers are answered.

This is an experiment, so in your hypothesis you can outline that your preconceived notions include that there is nothing out there to hear your prayers — but if there were, it would have x, y, z, etcetera, qualities (also according to your preconceived notions). Once the experiment is done, go back and outline where you were (potentially) right and where you were wrong.

Hey… it may just be the strangest thing you’ve ever done. Could be an adventure. Conducive to creativity and all that.

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Biblical criticism and interpretation.

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

From Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999:
‘The text and the message’, pp. 58-59
Excerpt from ‘Studying the Gospels’, pp. 546-547

The text and the message
Craig Bartholomew

Academic study of the Bible (‘biblical criticism’) has been dominated by a number of different emphases, each in turning coming to the fore.

The first is a historical emphasis. The historical-critical method, developed in Germany in the 19th century, was taken up by scholars in Britain and the United States early in the 20th century.

This method was critical, in the sense that it read and evaluated the biblical text from the perspective of the modern worldview. It was historical, in the sense that it used the historical tools that emerged out of modern philosophy of history. It was also historical in its concern, not so much with the text in its present form as with the history of the text and the events it referred to.

The main types of analysis of biblical texts that emerged out of this approach were:
*textual criticism, concerned with the establishment of the most reliable Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments
*source criticism, concerned with the sources underlying the text
*form criticism, concerned with the form or genre of small units of text and the origin of their genre in the societal life of Israel
*traditional criticism, concerned with the origin and development of biblical themes in the life of Israel
*redaction criticism (from the German word for editor: redactor), concerned with the way in which the text has been edited into its final shape.

A serious weakness of the historical-critical method is its failure to focus on the books of the Bible in their present form.

Not surprisingly, in the 1970s, a literary emphasis developed in response to this failure. This new emphasis focused on the biblical books as literary texts and explored them from this angle. The narrative shape of much of the Bible received fresh attention and questions such as the role of the narrator, the shape of the plot and the portrayal and development of characters were explored.

By the late 1970s some radical new developments were taking place in literary theory. Movements such as ‘post-structuralism’ and ‘deconstruction’ raised questions such as, ‘Do texts have meanings that we can discover, or do readers construct those meanings, so that there are as many meanings for a text as there are readers?’

Because of the literary emphasis in biblical studies it was inevitable that these new movements in the theory of literature would soon have an effect. And in the last few years these new questions have been applied to the Bible.

Because they represent a reaction to modern theories these new approaches are often known as postmodernism. Postmodernism has raised complex questions about texts, authors, readers, and the world, suggesting that texts do not have single meanings and that their meaning largely depends upon the reader/s.

Under the general category of postmodernism it has become commonplace for scholars to made deconstructionist, feminist, and other readings from biblical texts. A deconstructionist reading will, for example, look for places in a text where there are tensions between the overall message and what a small section of the text may be saying. In this way deconstruction exposes contradictions that it looks for and expects to find in all texts. A feminist reading will examine how women are or are not portrayed in biblical texts.

The effect of postmodernism on biblical studies has been to undermine the dominant historical criticism, leaving no one main method in its place. The impression often given nowadays is of a smorgasbord of interpretive approaches which we can choose from and enjoy, simply as a matter of personal preference. In the broader scholarly community there is no agreement about how to read the Bible or how to move forward in biblical studies.

Biblical interpretation is in crisis!

Most recently, there are signs of a theological emphasis coming to the fore, with some scholars arguing that biblical studies require a Christian theory of interpretation. This means our approach to the Bible should be rooted in a biblical understanding of the world, and that we ought to read the Bible above all to hear what God is saying to us through it.

Two points in particular should be noted about this history of different emphases:
*The Christian story or view of the world relates to the whole of life: so a biblical theory of interpretation ought to be shaped by the Christian story. In this sense the theological emphasis is right.
*We need an integrated approach to biblical interpretation. The historical, the literary and the theological are all important aspects of biblical texts. A proper understanding of the Bible means being alert to all these, and how they relate to one another—drawing on their different insights, and integrating them within a Christian theory of interpretation.

In my opinion this is best developed by taking what may be called a communication model and understanding the biblical text in terms of:

SENDER
MESSAGE
RECEIVER

If Scripture is primarily God’s Word to us, that should be the framework within which we read it.

However, we hear God’s Word through the message of the original sender and it is here that the hard interpretive work has to be done.

A communication model of biblical interpretation will focus attention on the text in its final form, employing all its energies to help us understand the message

Analysis of the sources of the text is an important element in this process. The biblical texts were written in very different times and cultures from today and knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and associated languages, knowledge of the cultural context in which the text was written, and so on, are vital elements in interpretation.

The examination of sources must, however, be subsidiary to helping us understand the message of the text. And study of sources must be related to understanding the text as we have it.

Knowledge of the context also plays an important role in assessing the type of the text we are dealing with—whether it is wisdom, narrative or prophecy, for example. But this too must help us focus on the particular text and its individual structure.

The rest of the Bible is also an important part of the context of each book: exploration of this, too, must help in explaining the message of the individual book.

The aim of a communication model of interpretation is to hear the message of each book of the Bible in the context of the whole of Scripture. If we understand aspects of the history of a text and something about its literary shape but fail to hear the message, our interpretation will be faulty. Our efforts at interpretation must aim to discern the message of the text, first to its original hearers and then to readers today.

There is, rightly, a growing recognition of the role of the reader/s in interpretation. It is recognized that readers bring their own views with them in the reading process. A key question is whether or not there are right views to bring.

In my opinion there are! Scripture is most appropriately read out of a deep conviction that it is God’s Word, and readers best approach it in this way. That does not mean that there are no difficult issues in interpretation: clearly there are. But analysis of the Bible out of a biblical view of the world will allow the real problems to emerge, without creating problems where none exist.

“For many decades Old Testament scholarship has been largely preoccupied with looking through the text to what may or may not lie behind it. Scholars have come to the text as a window…

Exciting things are happening, however. Since the mid-1970s…many books have appeared which have approached the text not as a window but as a picture. They have been concerned to look at the text, at what it says and how it says it. They have encouraged…an engagement with it, an enjoyment of it. The exercise of interpretation they have promoted…has brought the imagination into play, and the emotions… It has asked readers to pay attention to the text.

One great advantage of the approach is that it does not demand an enormous amount of background knowledge before we begin. The ‘ordinary’ reader can have a go.” –Trevor Dennis

— pp. 58-59, from Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.

If you’re ready to “have a go” at interpretation – perhaps the Inductive Bible Study Method will help get you started: http://www.godsquad.com/discipleship/inductive.htm If you want to try out the method, compare John 20:19 and Acts 2:14, and answer this question: what explains the change in Jesus’ disciples, from being full of fear, to being full of boldness? Here’s more on biblical criticism… and then something on interpretation specifically…

Different kinds of literary criticism
Richard A. Burridge

Increasingly today a wide range of literary-critical methods are being used to help our understanding of the Gospels.

So ‘compositions criticism’ considers how each evangelist arranges his material—for instance, Matthew’s five great blocks of Jesus’ teaching (chapters 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25) or Luke’s geographical arrangement of Galilee (4-9:50), the journey south (9:51-19:27), and Jerusalem (19:28-24:53).

‘Narrative criticism’ studies how the whole story works, with its plot, characters, tension, irony, motifs and patters.

Structuralist approaches analyze the structure of episodes to see how they actually work, as well as the deeper structure of the whole book.

‘Rhetorical criticism’ considers the use by the evangelists of techniques in ancient oratory to persuade their readers of the truth about Jesus.

Approaches like these, together, show how this most exciting area of literary study of the Gospels reveals the richness of each evangelist’s account.

Who were the Gospels written for?

All books are written for a particular audience or readership. Since not everyone could read in those times, ancient books were made known through public readings, at a dinner party or other gathering.

The Gospels would have been read aloud, in worship or other groups, more than they were read privately by individuals.

‘Sociological analyses’ describe the social or educational level of each Gospel’s intended audience, and reconstruct the kind of church Matthew was writing for, or the ‘Johannine community’ suggested by the argument with ‘the Jews’ and the synagogue in the fourth Gospel. This can become circular—reconstructing the community in the light of the text and interpreting the text in the light of the reconstructed community!

Recently, attention has moved away from the communities to the kind of reader or listener implied within each Gospel, with ‘reader-response criticism[b]’ looking at how each Gospel achieves its particular effect on people.

Dare we ‘criticize’ the Gospels?

Some people are worried by all these different ‘criticisms’ being applied to the Gospels.

Christians believe the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the Word of God. Are these approaches not about the words of human beings? Yes, they are. But God has communicated His Word through inspiring human beings to write and compose, to read and pass on these stories—and He can also inspire the humble biblical scholar trying to understand them!

The Gospels are not interpreted as magic books floating down from heaven, nor should we expect them to conform to modern notions of reporting and writing. Criticism need not be negative; rather, the use of these critical tools helps us understand more fully the depths and riches of these books, how God inspired the first Christians to tell the story of Jesus in their day as we seek to do the same today.
–excerpt from ‘Studying the Gospels’, pp. 546-547, Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.

Two good sites which handle biblical criticism and apologetics:
http://www.tektonics.org
http://www.christian-thinktank.com

Spiritual Meaning
Gerald L. Bray

exerpt of “Interpreting the Bible down the ages”
pp.55-56 Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible (1999)

There have always been those who have thought that the Bible is not a straightforward message from God, but a hidden riddle which has to be deciphered, usually in some highly complex and mysterious way.

A secret code of numbers? For example, in Hebrew and Greek each letter also stands for a number, and so theories developed according to which the Bible was a secret numerical code.

Numerology, as this is called, was very popular in certain Jewish circles, and it has resurfaced from time to time among Christians, although nowadays no reputable scholar or theologian takes it seriously.

Allegory? Around the time of Jesus, Philo of Alexandria (died AD 50) developed the belief that the Old Testament was in large measure an allegory of divine things. Allegory is a literary form in which one thing stands for another, even though there is no real connection between the two.

It became very popular as a way of interpreting the Song of Solomon, which many Christians regard as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the church, or between Christ and the individual believer.

As a method of interpretation, allegory came into the Christian church through Clement of Alexandria (died about AD 215), who took it over from Philo. Clement’s pupil Origen (about 185-254) developed it into a systematic form of biblical interpretation.

According to Origen there were three levels of meaning in Scripture: the literal, the moral and the spiritual. These paralleled the three ‘parts’ of a human being: body, soul, and spirit. Later on, the 4th-century monk John Cassian added another spiritual sense, the ‘anagogical’, which is similar to the spiritual but concentrates on the future life of the Christian in heaven.

Allegory was very popular in the Middle Ages, especially among monks, though serious scholars did their best to keep it under control. However, it seemed to offer a very attractive way of interpreting the Old Testament, which no longer had to be taken literally. The events it describes—the slaying of the Amalekites, for example—were not to be understood as models for Christian behavior but rather as signs, pointing to the fact that we have put sin to death in our lives.

People who adopted this approach often accused Jews of being ‘literalits’ in their reading of the Old Testament, which was supposed to be why they failed to see Jesus in it.

At its best, allegory was a means of finding references to the Saviour in places which at first sight looked highly unlikely (as in the example of the Song of Solomon), and of applying obscure biblical passages to everyday life.

After the Reformation, allegory died out among academic interpreters, but it remained popular in other places. Many hymns used it. In ‘Guide me O thou great Jehovah’, for example, the wilderness journey of the people of Israel stands for the Christian life. This is a favorite allegorical theme going back to ancient times. Negro spirituals, in which the River Jordan stands for death, the Promised Land for heaven, and so on, make great use of allegory. In the 19th century, especially, preachers loved to use allegory.

Different levels of meaning In recent years, increasing attention among scholars to the literary genres used in the Bible has made many people aware of different levels of meaning within the text, and this in turn has given the ancient spiritual interpretation a new lease of life.

Much allegorical interpretation is crude or obviously wrong, but it does at least make us aware that there may be more to the meainging of a passage than meets the eye.

Some modern theories have much in common with allegory, and many attempts to make the Bible ‘relevant’ to women, to people in the developing world, and to other contemporary concerns must obviously go beyond what the actual words of the text say.

Those who study the Bible do not have to choose between the two main types of interpretation: they can borrow ideas from both of them. But it is best to determind the straightforward literary-historical interpretation first.

Christians believe that the Old Testament covenant between God and His people find its fulfillment, and therefore its true meaning, in Christ. That has to be born in mind when we try to apply a particular Old Testament passage to the present day.

Has the coming of Christ altered the conditions in which a particular Old Testament text was originally applicable? If so, the chances are that it must be used differently today. For example, what the Old Testament says about the ancient Temple sacrifices (which are no longer carried out) can throw light on the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross, as a sacrifice on our behalf.

Even in the New Testament, it is important to distinguish what the text teaches as an abiding theological principle from what it simply records as historical fact (the two are not identical). For instance, Christians are called to follow the example—to ‘imitate’—both Christ and the apostle Paul. That means sharing their attitudes and beliefs, and living in a way they would approve—not taking up carpentry or tent-making!

The Bible is the most important book in the history of Western civilization. It has been taken up in many cultures and communities, influencing faith and practice. It is crucial that it be read in a way which appreciates the different kinds of writing it contains.

These are excellent resources to use if you want to dig in to the Word.

I don’t necessarily agree with all the Precept upon Precept interpretations… for example, in Hebrews 6 (falling away). But… if you use the inductive method, you’ll agree where it’s most important.

Crosswalk has a bible search by word or verse, dictionaries, lexicons, multiple translations, etcetera.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/
http://bible.crosswalk.com/

An excellent way to make sure your assertions hold water and aren’t just pulled out of thin air…

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

If you were God, how would you make yourself known?

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

If I had never heard about God before, and suddenly I started wondering why anything exists, and it occurred to me that perhaps there is a being behind it all… and that perhaps this being interacts with beings like me… I would look for evidence of this interaction. I would think, “If I were a being behind all existence and I interacted with beings that exist to a lesser degree than me… beings curious about me… how would I go about interacting with them… how would I feed their curiosity (that I no doubt gave them)?” I thank God that I don’t have to look far for evidence of His interaction. I just grew up around it and so it was nothing special to me. Instead of accepting it, or asking God to show me further… I just walked away. Now I know… Ask… seek… knock. Don’t get lost.

Besides that… if you are God, how do you convince someone that you aren’t just their imagination, in a way that prevents them from going absolutely nuts? Maybe going nuts is an unavoidable part of it, and is why He doesn’t just make Himself known to everybody all at once (until the end)? Maybe also it is merciful on His part, because if God revealed Himsef to you, you might think “Uh oh, my time’s up… I better straighten my act up,” and you might be forced to give up some precious sin you were surviving on. It is interesting to note how the OT prophets reacted to revelations from God… fainting… being terrified… etc.. I can definitely see God’s keeping Himself on the down-low being a lot about mercy and patience.

But I also see that He has revealed Himself throughout the course of history, greatly effecting it in the process.

Some who claim they are agnostic or atheists say their reason for this is they have no evidence of God’s interaction or existence. The responsibility to examine evidence rests on the individual. Is the evidence the authors of the Bible had available in order to convince others that God’s Word is true… any less reliable than the evidence we have available to us? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ (prob’ly wrong example) on such evidence being valid? How long after the ‘events’ does the evidence expire? What are the rules for that in the case of, say… secular history (calling it ‘secular’ sounds weird, considering God is sovereign over all of history, but anyway).

Something to think about — God can’t demonstrate His dying on the cross and rising from the dead like some sort of play that has multiple showings and goes on tour… He can only do it once, for all audiences… or it loses meaning. But, even the people who witnessed it, didn’t have a clue what was coming, what was going on while it was happening. We are in a privileged position. We don’t have to be the ones recorded in the gospels not having a clue what Jesus was talking about when He foretold His own death and how long He would be dead before He rose again… the ones all surprised to see Him alive and well again. Hopefully we are not the ones all surprised and clueless when He returns as King.

Posted in Apologetics | 2 Comments

Is it a weakness for God to have feelings?

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

How I know He has feelings is because He saved me. Nobody without feelings saves anybody.

He showed us how to live in union with Him (happy) by giving us the law, and He gave us a way to make things right with Him (the old sacrificial system, symbolizing the consequences of living apart from God, who is the source of true life) because keeping the law (perfection) is only possible for God (who is perfect), the old way foreshadowing and culminating in Jesus’ perfect sacrifice… the Message showing us He loves us no matter what. This love makes possible the closest friendship possible, one you can’t even come close to imagining before you actually experience it.

That’s just the emotion of love. There’s more, though they all spring from love.

And He’s still omnipotent… even with emotions… something to think about. How is it a contradiction to have emotions and yet be omnipotent? How can emotions be a weakness for God? They might be a weakness for beings as frail as we humans, but… that’s the point… for when we are weak (and not in denial about it)… that’s when we are open to allowing God’s strength to help us… then we are strong.

“However, God does not have intent. For God to have intent, it would have to have intentions towards something. God’s motivation towards that something would have to arise from something which it lacks. God is not deficient of anything, being absolutely infinite; therefore, God has no intent.”
– DeSpinozist

Here’s a few things to think about…

“God’s attention does not pass from thought to thought, for His knowledge embraces everything in a single spiritual co-intuition. For if God is simple, then His thoughts are not sequential but simultaneous. He does not know things inferentially but intuitively. On the contrary, if God is not simple, then He could think in temporal succession. And, as some have shown, if God is temporal, then He is also spatial. Indeed, such a God would even be material (which is contrary to Scripture, e.g., John 4:24). And if God is limited to the space/time world, then He could think no faster than the speed of light. Thus He would not even be able to know the whole universe at a given moment, to say nothing of having infallible knowledge of the future,”

(pp. 52-53, Geisler, “Chosen But Free”).

God does not will from a lack. All that He wills is already fulfilled from His perspective (beyond time). If He did not love, it would contradict His nature. He does not love from a lack, but from His perfection… and we are in turn to love likewise…

Some ask whether we love because the person is inherently lovable or deserving of or needful of love – or whether we love because we’ve got love to give. There is selfish giving (which isn’t really giving) and there is other-focused, selfless giving. Sometimes we do what we call “love” not out of ‘having love to give’ but out of a deficit (read Plato’s Symposium). Other times, the best times, we love because God gives us His love, and we’ve got plenty left over to share. A good analogy is the well of creativity. Some seem to have bottomless wells, others’ dry up easily. God’s well of creativity and love is infinite and one-and-the-same, and we draw from it when we walk with Him. His power (love, creativity) is perfected in our weakness (deficit) (2 Cor 12:9).

See my Lapis Lazuli thread, and this interesting article:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Satan is not actually "Lucifer"

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

You won’t find anywhere in the Bible where it says Lucifer tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. There was a serpent/dragon in Genesis, and Satan is referred to as a serpent/dragon elsewhere in the Bible besides Genesis… like in Revelation 20:2 “And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” — saying “serpent of old” is referring to the tempting of Eve.

Although I’ve heard people try to say it because of the “morning star” connection (explained below) — Jesus is not Lucifer. Not even Satan is Lucifer, as far as the Bible is concerned.

Although even today many call Satan “Lucifer” due to interpreting poetic language in a way it was not meant — Lucifer is not one of Satan’s names (in the Bible), but instead is translated “star of the morning” in Isaiah 14:12 and refers to the king of Babylon (v4), a type (prefiguration) of the “beast” (antichrist) who will lead the Babylon of the last days (info from Zondervan’s NASB study bible notes). The phrase “star of the morning” is not synonymous with “Satan” but is figurative language of the king’s high position (see Num 24:17; Rev 2:18-29; 22:16).

In Luke 10:18, Jesus does not use the word “Lucifer” and He is not referring to a time in the past, but to His present. His comment comes after the disciples mention even the demons are subject to them. It would be silly to consider Lucifer an actual star that can fall out of the sky — this is not what Jesus meant. And He certainly wasn’t referring to Himself.

Ezekiel 28 is referring to either the city of Tyre as a ruler, or to Ethbaal II, the king then ruling Tyre. Much of the chapter is using poetic, not literal, language.

Posted in Apologetics | 4 Comments

Determinism and Free Will

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Please note: this thread is updated by my “Predestination and Free Will” thread.

Implication of determinism: God is responsible for evil.

That God is responsible for evil is an implication of determinism, depending on how you understand determinism. If He is responsible for determining everything, He is responsible for evil. This is not a view I take — it is a view I present and then answer.

It’s easy to miss that, considering it’s a long thread.

1. A lot of evil we feel drawn to prevent, but do not have the willpower to choose (see segment directly below on free will) to prevent it, unless we ask God for His strength – so, why don’t we ask God for His strength?

2. We learn and grow from it. Suffering builds character – See Romans 5:3-5 (not Nietzsche). See also 1 Peter 4:12. “In the 1955 episode ‘The Big Freeze,’ for example, Kent admonishes citizens to get out and vote for the city’s next mayor, rather than rely on Superman in and ‘save the election’ from a gangster crook who is running for office: ‘Sometimes, Lois, it’s not wise for the people to depend on Superman to keep their own house in order.’” (p. 515, “The Superhero Book”, Gina Misiroglu, Visible Ink Press, 2004.)

For prophecy to be possible, the future already exists, and the past still exists to the future (this is what God means when He says “I AM” – He is past, He is present, He is future – He transcends all of it). From that standpoint, and from the standpoint of God’s providence and sovereignty – is it really possible that we choose freely and are responsible for all of our thoughts and behavior? A brief review of what the Bible has to say about free will…

Free moral agency of man—ability to choose
Resulted in sin… Gen. 2:16, 17 Recognized by God… Gen. 4:6-10; John 7:17
Appealed to… Is. 1:18-20; Jer. 36:3,7

Freedom—unrestricted action
A. Of the unregenerate, limited by: Sin (John 8:34) Inability (John 8:43) Satan (John 8:41, 44) Bondage (Rom 6:20) Deadness (Eph 2:1)
B. Of the regenerate: Made free by Christ (John 8:36) Freed from bondage (Rom 6:18, 22) Not of license (1 Pet 2:16) Not of bondage again (Gal 5:1) Not of the flesh (Gal 5:13)

A few musings…

1. We must learn responsibility and judgment – otherwise we will never know mercy and love (God)…. which is the entire point of our existence. Job 19:29, Romans 11:32.
2. We cannot shake the feeling that we make choices and we cannot shake the feeling of regret when our choices are unwise – therefore, we operate under the assumption that we do chose, and we are responsible… even if we don’t understand how it can really be possible, from the standpoint of God’s sovereignty.
3. It is really hard to fathom, as we go about the daily routine, that God creates every moment, down to the tiniest detail. If you ever truly consider it – you will really be scratching your head at some of those details. But know this: like the best of authors, no detail is wasted. [ God is in control at every level, much like letting go of the shopping cart as it rolls and then grabbing hold of it again, has the ability to create within every moment, did and does not create evil, and can turn evil circumstances to His benefit. ]
4. Does the fact that there is sin (from the perspective of predestination) not conflict with God’s being pure and good and holy and Love? Or do we misunderstand where God is coming from? [ This is a tangent: For, how can He be all-knowing, and at the same time be ignorant (untouched) of all our sin? He knows all about it – but He transcends it. It does not influence Him to do evil. A lack of ignorance does not equate to impurity, otherwise “all knowing” would equate to “completely evil”. He is immune to the muck… ] …His wish for us is that we rely on His strength to become as immune as He, made complete in Him, like a true soul-/mind-mate, and come to know Love and Strength in His eyes. If we are really responsible for all of our sin (except that He already said “I love you no matter what, I would die for you,” when crucified), then there is some perfectly super-reasonable explanation (given above and below) as to how that does not contradict God’s sovereignty and perfection.
5. *puts on nerd glasses* Are there parallel universes in which we make different choices than we make in this universe, or are there possible futures from which we choose only one? And can we go back in time and change things to prevent something we have already gone through? – no, no and no. God gets it right the first and only time. But an interesting little tidbit is that prophets are time travelers – at least the ones that get to actually experience parts of the future, and/or are taken to meet people who have lived in the past but are no longer on earth (or anywhere else in the universe-as-we-know-it). The experience of a prophet is mediated by God, who brings the experiences of at least one other time and place into the mind of the prophet. Of course this has implications for the materialism debate… perhaps at a later date.
6. Something that is hard to understand is that the past, present, and future are signed, sealed and delivered – but God is active in every moment. When God brings the future into a mind accustomed to feeling itself as being in the present… He has not changed any part of the signed, sealed, and delivered package. The mind thinks: time1 (“now” without knowing “future”) plus time2 (“future” before it has been placed in “now”) must equal time3 (but how can you have “now” with “future” above and separate from “now” without “future”? – not to mention a “future before it has been placed in ‘now’” above and separate from a “future after it as been placed in ‘now’”?) (and then the brain has a cramp) – but, see… the mind is confused about time. There never was a ‘now without future’ and there never was a ‘future before it has been placed in now’ – the “now” included the future all along (there’s no juggling!), and the future had been placed in “now” all along (from the standpoint of our Creator, transcending past-present-future time). It is as illogical to worry about how God can still take an active role in this signed, sealed, and delivered universe – as it is illogical to worry about whether or not we can still actively experience “now”. Oh, how beautiful it is – how beautiful is the One who Is!!!
7. Perhaps somewhere in there lies the explanation to how free will is possible despite God’s sovereignty? Maybe we can add to this assertion: “It is as illogical to worry about how God can still take an active role in this signed, sealed, and delivered universe – as it is illogical to worry about whether or not we can still actively experience ‘now’,” by following it with the assertion that it is as illogical to ask whether or not our free will (in this “now”) is possible within God’s sovereignty, as it is illogical to ask if we can actively experience, and God can take an active role in, a signed, sealed, and delivered “now” (please see number 9).
8. *adjusts pocket protector* What if some mad scientist or other assorted weirdo (loved by God) decides to translate this gobbledygook into practical math or something and tries to time-travel (via his/her mind, of course) – will (s)he take over the world? Well, considering his/her travels must be part of the signed, sealed, and delivered package in order to be successful – any sort of reign (s)he might enjoy will only be temporary, and will ultimately work out “for the good to those who love God” (Romans 8:28). So striking it out on your own not only misses the point, but is an act of futility — and why settle on temporary? Why not get to the point of why we even exist?
9. Please do note that there really is only one “now” (one grand moment) – that which is composed of the past, present, and future, without dividing it into different seconds, minutes, days, or hours. And there really is only one “place” – that which is composed of the entire (in)traversable universe, without dividing it into different inches, feet, yards, and miles. So what God is doing when He puts the “future” into a prophet’s mind – is equivalent to what He did when He snatched Peter away from the eunuch and placed him at Azotus (Acts 8:39,40). *calculates something on the slide ruler*

All quotes below are taken out of The Zondervan NASB Study Bible, 1999.

Proverbs 20:24 “Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?” (NASB note: see notes on 3:5-6; 16:9)

Proverbs 16:9 “The mind of a man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.” [NASB note: verses 1, 3-4 (see notes) also emphasize God’s control over men’s lives (see 19:21; 20:24; Ps 37:23; Jer 10:23)]

Proverbs 19:21 “Many plans are in man’s heart, But the counsel of the Lord will stand.”

Psalm 37:23 “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, And He delights in his way.” (Ichthus: see all of Psalm 37)

Jer 10:23 “”I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.” NASB note: Only the Lord can direct people’s steps.

Proverbs 16:1 “The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.” NASB note: God must give the ability to articulate and accomplish those plans.

Proverbs 16:4 “God has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” NASB note: God is sovereign in every life and in all of history (see Eccl 7:14; Rom 8:28). Even through wicked men God displays His power (cf. Ex 9:16), and all evil will be judged (cf. Ezek 38:22-23; Rom 2:5-11).

Eccl 7:14 “In the day of prosperity be happy, But in the day of adversity consider—God has made the one as well as the other So that man will not discover anything that will be after him.”

Romans 8:28-30 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” NASB note: “foreknew” Some insist that the knowledge here is not abstract but is couched with love and mixed with purpose. They hold that God not only knew us before we had any knowledge of Him but that He also knew us, in the sense of choosing us by His grace, before the foundation of the world (see Eph 1:4-5; 2 Tim 1:9 and notes). Others believe that Paul here refers to the fact that in eternity past God knew those who by faith would become His people. “predestined” Predestination here is to moral conformity to the likeness of His Son.

Exodus 9:16 “But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.” NASB note: Paul quotes this verse as an outstanding illustration of the sovereignty of God (see Rom. 9:17).

Ephesians 1:4-5, 9,11 “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him. …also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,” NASB note: “chose” Divine election is a constant theme in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:29-33; 9:6-26; 11:5,7,28; 16:13; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13; Titus 1:1). In this chapter it is emphasized in the following ways: (1) “He chose us” (here); (2) “He predestined us” (v. 5); “also we have obtained an inheritance” (v. 11). “before the foundation of the world” See John 17:24.

John 17:24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

2 Timothy 1:9 “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,” NASB note: God’s plan to save lost sinners was made in eternity past (see Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20; Rev. 13:8).

Romans 9:11-23 “for though the twins (Jacob and Esau) were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her (Rebekah), ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (NASB note: Jacob I chose, but Esau I rejected).’ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.’ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,”

NASB note: (18) The first part of this verse again echoes Ex 33:19 (see v. 15) and the last part such texts as Ex 7:3; 9:12; 14:4,17, in which God is said to harden the hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. “on whom He desires” Cannot mean that God is arbitrary in His mercy, because Paul ultimately bases God’s rejection of Israel on her unbelief (see vv. 30-32). (19) Someone may object: “If God determines whose heart is hardened and whose is not, how can God blame anyone for hardening his heart?” (20) “who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” Paul is not silencing all questioning of God by man, but he is speaking to those with an impenitent, God-defying attitude who want to make God answerable to man for what He does and who, by their questions, defame the character of God. (21) The analogy between God and the potter and between man and the pot should not be pressed to the extreme. The main point is the sovereign freedom of God in dealing with man. (22-23) An illustration of the principle stated in v. 21. The emphasis is on God’s mercy, not His wrath. (22) No one can call God to account for what He does. But He does not exercise His freedom of choice arbitrarily, and He shows great patience even toward the objects of His wrath. In light of 2:4, the purpose of such patience is to bring about repentance.

Romans 11:5 “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.” NASB note: The grounds for the existence of the remnant was not their good works but God’s grace.

Romans 11:7 “What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;” NASB note: “hardened” Because they refused the way of faith (see 9:31-32), God made them impervious to spiritual truth (see notes on Is 6:8-10)—a judicial hardening of Israel.

Romans 11:28 “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;” NASB note: “beloved” Not because any merit was passed on from the patriarchs to the Jewish people as a whole, but because God in love chose Israel and that choice was irrevocable.

Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”

Colossians 3:12 “So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” NASB note: “chosen of God” Israel was called this (Deut. 4:37), and so is the Christian community (1 Pet. 2:9). Divine election is a constant theme in Paul’s letters (see note on Eph 1:4), but the Bible never teaches that it dulls human responsibility. On the contrary, as this verse shows, it is precisely because the Christian has been elected to eternal salvation that he must put forth every effort to live a godly life. For Paul, divine sovereignty and human responsibility go hand in hand.

1 Thess. 1:4 “knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;”

2 Thess. 2:13 “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”

Titus 1:1 “Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,”

1 Peter 1:20 “For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you…” NASB note: God knew before creation that it would be necessary for Christ to redeem man (cf. Rev 13:8), but He has revealed Christ in these last times. Or the Greek for “foreknown” may also be rendered “chosen.” Then the meaning would be that in eternity past God “chose” Christ as Redeemer.

Revelation 13:8 “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”

Exodus 33:18 “And He said, ‘I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.’”

Exodus 4:21 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.’” NASB note: “I will harden his heart.” Nine times in Exodus the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart is ascribed to God (here; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8; see Rom 9:17-18 and notes); another nine times the pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart (7:13-14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34-35). The pharaoh alone was the agent of the hardening in each of the first five plagues. Not until the sixth plague did God confirm the pharaoh’s willful action (see 9:12), as he had told Moses he would do (see similarly Rom 1:24-28).

Exodus 4:17 “”As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen.”

Isaiah 6:8-10 “Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, who will go for Us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’ He said, ‘Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ ‘Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.’” NASB note: Isaiah’s prophetic commission will have the ironic but justly deserved effect of hardening the callous hearts of rebellious Israel—and so rendering the warnings of judgment sure (see vv.11-13). See also Jer. 1:8, 19; Ezek. 2:3-4). Verses 9 and 10 are quoted by Jesus in the parable of the sower (Matt 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10). See also Rom 11:7-10, 25. “hearts…ears…eyes…eyes…ears…hearts” The a-b-c/c-b-a inversion is called a “chiastic” arrangement, a common literary device in the OT. “ears dull…eyes dim” Israel’s deafness and blindness are also mentioned in 29:9-14; 42:18; 43:8. One day, however, the nation will be able to see and hear (29:18; 35:5).

NASB note Mark 4:11,12: “mystery of the kingdom of God” In the NT “mystery” refers to something God has revealed to His people. They mystery (that which was previously unknown) is proclaimed to all, but only those who have faith understand. In this context the mystery seems to be that the kingdom of God had drawn near in the coming of Jesus Christ. “so that” Jesus likens His preaching in parables to the ministry of Isaiah, which while it gained some disciples (Is 8:16), was also to expose the hardhearted resistance of the many to God’s warning and appeal.

NASB note Luke 8:10: “mysteries of the kingdom of God” Truths that can be known only by revelation from God (cf. Eph 3:2-5; 1 Pet 1:10-12). See note on Mark 4:11. “that seeing they may not see.” This quotation from Isaiah (6:9) does not express a desire that some would not understand, but simply states the sad truth that those who are not willing to receive Jesus’ message will find the truth hidden from them. Their ultimate fate is implied in the fuller quotation in Matt 13:14-15 (see note on Mark 4:12).

Deut. 4:37 “Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power,”

1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness and into His marvelous light;” NASB note: “chosen race” See Is 43:10,20; 44:1-2. As Israel was called God’s chosen people in the OT, so in the NT believers are designated as chosen, or elect.

Isaiah 29:9-12 “Be delayed and wait, Blind yourselves and be blind; They become drunk, but not with wine, They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep, He has shut your eyes, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, the seers. The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, ‘Please read this,’ he will say, ‘I cannot, for it is sealed.’ Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Please read this.” And he will say, ‘I cannot read.’” NASB note: “Blind yourselves…become drunk” Refers to spiritual stupor (see 6:10 and note; cf. 28:1,7). Vs. 10 quoted in part in Rom. 11:8. “seers” See 1 Sam. 9:9 and note; 2 Kin 17:13. “vision” see 1:1 and note. “I cannot” God’s word is a closed book even to the educated. Vs. 13 Quoted in part by Jesus to show the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matt 15:8-9).

Isaiah 43:10,13,20; 44:1-2 “’You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘And my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.’” “Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?” “The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people.” “But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus says the Lord who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.’”

John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” NASB note: “I chose you…bear fruit…ask.” Disciples normally chose the particular rabbi to whom they wanted to be attached, but it was not so with Jesus’ disciples. He chose them, and for a purpose—the bearing of fruit. We usually desire a strong prayer life in order that we may be fruitful, but here it is the other way around. Jesus enables us to bear fruit, and then the Father will hear our prayers.

Acts 2:23 “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,”

Psalm 103:19 “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all.”

Psalm 75:7 “But God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another.”

Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

Genesis 45:5-8 “Now to do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting. God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance. Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt.” NASB note: God had a purpose to work through the brothers’ thoughtless and cruel act (see Acts 4:28).

Acts 4:27-28 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” NASB note: Not that God had compelled them to act as they did, but He willed to use them and their freely chosen acts to accomplish His saving purpose.

Acts 17:23-28 “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you, ‘The God who made the world and all things in it since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He himself gives to all people life and breath and all things and He made form one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, even as one of your poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’’” NASB note: Thus a personal Creator, in contrast with the views of pantheistic Stoicism. He planned the exact times when nations should emerge and decline. He also planned the specific area to be occupied by each nation. He is God, the Designer (things were not left to Chance, as the Epicureans thought).

Matt 10:30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”
Ps 90:2 “Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth an dthe world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

Prov 8:23 “From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. NASB note: “From everlasting” Descriptive also of Christ (see John 1:1; cf. Mic 5:2). “from the earliest times of the earth” Wisdom was already there before God began to create the world (cf. Christ’s statement in John 17:5).

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

John 8:58 “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’”

Exodus 3:14 “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you’.’”

John 17:5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

Rev 14:6 “And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;”

Eph 3:10-11 “so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,”

Ex 2:5-10 (example of God’s providence)
Esth 6:1-10 (example of God’s sovereignty)

Acts 22:10 “And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’”

Luke 22:22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

Gal 3:8 “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’” NASB note: “Scripture, foreseeing” A personification of Scripture that calls attention to its divine origin (see 1 Tim 5:18).

2 Tim 1:9 “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,”

Matthew 25:34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’”

Matthew 24:22 “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.”

Isaiah 41:22,23a (NASB note: God takes the nations and their idols to court) “Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events (NASB note: events = predictions or accomplishments), declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome, Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods;” (God knows they cannot deliver.)

Jeremiah 23:2-3 NASB note: “I have driven.” Although Judah’s sins and the sins of their leaders had caused them to be “driven…away” (v.2) into exile, the Lord Himself ultimately carried out the results of His people’s repeated violations of their covenant commitments.

Some verses I didn’t get to, found in the “Providence” (“divine guidance of men and things”) listing in the Universal Subject Guide to the Bible, found near the back of The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990:

A. Described as:
Righteous… Ps 145:17
Something mysterious… Job 11:7-9
Irresistible… Dan 4:35
B. Manifested, in the world, in God’s:
Preserving the world… Neh 9:6
Providing for His possessions… Ps 104:27,28
Ruling over the elements… Is 50:2,3
Preserving nature… Gen 8:22
C. Attitude of believers toward:
Acknowledge in prosperity… 1 Chr 29:11,12; Prov 3:6
Humble himself before, in adversity… Job 1:21; Ps 119:75
Remember God’s hand… Ps 139:10

The above subject guide listing is not complete, as it does not include the verses already covered in this thread.

But an interesting little tidbit is that prophets are time travelers – at least the ones that get to actually experience parts of the future, and/or are taken to meet people who have lived in the past but are no longer on earth (or anywhere else in the universe-as-we-know-it). The experience of a prophet is mediated by God, who brings the experiences of at least one other time and place into the mind of the prophet.
– from section 5 above.

I was just chewing on this a little bit … the aspect that prophets don’t travel through time… Time travels to the prophet (with the assistance of God) – although… it isn’t like anything changes (nothing “moves” – it was always there … remember the point in section 6 that “there’s no juggling”). Haha. Kinda neat.

I was perusing “Major Bible Themes” by Lewis Sperry Chafer (revised by John F. Walvoord) (Zondervan, 1974) and came upon the chapter titled “Divine Election” – some of it is relevant, so I’ll post it (from pages 232,234) here:

Divine election is not an act of God in time, but rather a part of His eternal purpose. This is brought out in numerous passages such as Ephesians 1:4 which states, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” According to 2 Timothy 1:9 our election is “according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” Because God’s plan is eternal, election as an essential part of it must also be eternal.

. . .

No one is saved against his will, and no one disbelieves against his will.

. . .

…in setting up a moral universe in which men have a choice to believe or not to believe, it is inevitable that some will not be saved.

Still another objection is that if some are elected to salvation and others are elected to not being saved, they are hopeless in their lost estate. Scripture clearly emphasizes that some are elected to salvation, and the unsaved are destined for their lot, not because men who desired salvation were unable to secure it, but always on the ground that those who are unsaved chose to be unsaved. God’s mercy is shown in His longsuffering, as in Romans 9:21-22 and 2 Peter 3:9. No one will ever be able to stand before God and say, “I wanted to be saved but was unable to do so because I was not elected.”

I like Sperry’s thinking, but I am having difficulty finding any Scripture which says there are some elected to not being saved. Anyone who can find such Scripture – please let me in on it. Perhaps (if) there aren’t any verses about being elected to eternal damnation, (it is) because God doesn’t want there to be that impetus/catalyst there for those who would be inclined to say “I wanted to be saved but was unable to do so because I was not elected,” and, due to that horrible misunderstanding, never seek out God. And perhaps there aren’t any verses that say “all will be saved” because if there were, people would pervert God’s grace even worse than some already have/do…? Just a thought.

As my old pastor used to say and no doubt still says… Guy asks how he knows if he’s one of God’s elect. Pastor tells him to just pray to receive Christ. Guy doesn’t want to. Pastor says, “Well, then you’re not one of God’s elect.” Guy says “But that’s not fair!” Pastor says, “Well, then pray to receive Christ.” And so on… My (old) pastor says it way funnier than I could ever write it (not that it’s funny if someone never gets to know God).

Adding to the “determinism” aspect of this thread, see Lamentations 3:37-38; Amos 3:6.

There are some whose names are not written in the book of life… those who willfully choose eternity apart from God. If they are alive during the Tribulation, they will worship the beast (Rev 13:8-10). Some will convert during the Tribulation (see Dan 9:27; Joel 2:28-32; Rev 7 and 11 and 14:6; 2 Pet 3:9). I know that God knows how to get through to a person, because He got through to me when I wasn’t even seeking Him out, when I had given up on His existence. So, it is very hard for me to imagine there being people to whom God can’t… or won’t… get through… and I think the Tribulation is a last-resort method He will use. But… hell is the consequence when you’ve run out of chances.

I trust God not to exclude anyone from this divine ledger, written from the foundation of the world, who has not had a chance to say “yes” or “no” to God, who is truth and love. But, imagine what heaven would be like if God forced people to hang around who wanted nothing to do with God (just out of the kindness of His own heart, so people don’t get mad about the unfairness of Hell). Do you think heaven would still be heaven? But — why would someone want nothing to do with God?

Because He lets us go our own way – even if that means chaos in this life, and hell in the life (death) to come? Why do we get mad at God when we ourselves make the wrong choice? If He didn’t give us that responsibility, we would complain that we weren’t free enough (no, we wouldn’t, because we’d have no concept of freedom, which only comes with that gift of responsibility). If He didn’t give us that responsibility, we could not choose… we could not choose God, who is love and truth. God doesn’t love us because we deserve it. He loves us because He is love. But His love isn’t the kind of love that smothers… He won’t manifest His love for you if you don’t want Him to. The alternative is hell. God knows if a person has not had ample opportunity to know what they are rejecting – He isn’t going to send anyone to hell unjustly. To choose hell is to trample in the mud the freedom to choose God’s love and truth.

It’s like God arranges for you to receive (for free – you don’t have to do anything to earn it) one hundred trillion dollars (life; eternal life) – a condition of which is that you can’t spend the money (live; live eternally) if spending it consistently breaks the golden rule (Matthew 7:12) or God’s royal law of love (Matthew 22:39) – and so you refuse the winnings (choose the opposite of life and eternal life) because you like your spending ideas better, or because you know you don’t have the willpower to spend the money that way, without God’s help, and you don’t want God’s help (why not? …receiving help from God is like becoming a super hero! Do a study on spiritual gifts…). Yet, you think it is God who stinks, ‘cause He won’t just give you the money anyway. Well… you’re alive, aren’t you? So the ball’s in your court…(John 10:10).

You will never go to hell unless you choose it, and you choose it by rejecting God (who is goodness, love, etcetera). A God that only gives you one option (to love Him) is a dictator. So, God gives you two options: love, or hell. The presence of evil proves He is not a dictator — He doesn’t have to allow us to choose poorly… except for the fact that He is love, and so it is impossible for Him to act against His nature and force wise, loving choices out of us. The only people God ever sends to hell or punishes — chose it.

He will not forsake you unless you forsake Him first — and His forsaking you (if and only if you reject Him) is because He won’t force you to love Him. Love must be chosen freely, and freedom is not forced.

Think of it like this. Consider all that is good and right and just. If you choose it, at any cost, it may be difficult, but worth it. If you reject it, for whatever reason, you must do without it. It is no different when talking about choosing or rejecting God. All that is truly good, right, just — comes from Him.

God did not screw up humanity. Humans make their own bad choices. God is omnipotent, but He cannot go against His own loving nature and force humans to freely make loving choices. The humans of Noah’s time were not just slightly impure. They were “full of violence”. Noah and his family were the only ones following God at the time. Same deal with Sodom and Gommorah (sp?) — Lot and his family were the only ones following God. Following God clearly does not equate to perfection, if you are familiar with Lot’s and Noah’s families. Kind of says a lot about how bad it had gotten outside their families. And when it gets that bad again, because instead of accepting God’s forgiveness people choose to sink lower into the muck, there will be a final judgment (but… not a flood), and the ones like Noah and Lot and their families will again escape it (via the rapture).

Maybe you need to watch this:

http://www.fathersloveletter.com/fllpreviewlarge.html

I choose His love. What do you choose?

There are two types of determinism referred to in this thread — the fact that the story already has an ending, created from beyond linear time (we might think of it as “being”) — and the fact that God is active in this story, within time (from our perspective, that feels like “becoming”). But God does not become. He Is. Hence: “I AM”.

Predestination verses:

Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:4-5, 9, 11; 3:10-11; John 1:1-3; 8:58; 17:5, 24; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; Isaiah 41:22, 23a; 43:10, 13, 20; 44:1-2; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; 17:23-28; 22:10; Psalm 90:2; 139:16; Genesis 45:5-8; Proverbs 8:23; Micah 5:2; Exodus 3:14; Luke 22:22; Galatians 3:8; Matthew 24:22; 25:34

All other verses in the original list of verses above had to do with the omnipotence/sovereignty of God, and not predestination directly.

Add this verse to the list:

1 Peter 1:1b, 2 “…who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”

Posted in Predestination | Leave a comment

How does nature know?

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

“‘If we take in our hand any volume: of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.’ [Hume] If, in order to be meaningful, a statement must be either mathematically sustained or scientifically verifiable, then David Hume’s statement itself is meaningless. It is a philosophical solvent that dissolves itself. The emperor has no clothes, while boasting the finest threads,” (*p.63).

“…the statistical probability of forming even a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, which is in turn the building block of the cell, is 1 in 10^40,000. The translation of that figure is that it would require more attempts for the formation of one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars of all the galaxies in the entire known universe,” (*p.65).

“How does a universe, which itself developed from nothing, impart into every human strand of DNA enough specific information to cover six hundred thousand pages of information from nothing?” (*p. 66).

“Think of this for a moment. In eighteen milliliters of water (about two swallows full), there are 6 x 10^23 molecules of H2O. How much is 6 x 10^23? A good computer can carry out ten million counts per second. It would take that computer two billion years to count to 6 x 10^23.

“Look at it another way. A stack of five hundred sheets of paper is two to three inches high. How high would the stack be if it had 6 x 10^23 sheets? That stack would reach from the earth to the sun, not once, but more than one million times,” (*p. 80-81).

*All quotes above from Ravi Zacharias’ “Jesus Among Other Gods” (Thomas Nelson, 2000).

Spiders know how to make webs, birds know how to make nests, salmon and other animals know how to migrate, and many other animals just know what they are supposed to do without having to learn — and we wonder at how they know…but nature knows how to make spiders, birds, and all the rest of the living, breathing animals…including human beings with all of our thoughts and art and science and… is it not reasonable to ask: “How does nature know?” Are not living things more awesome artifacts than webs and nests?

Webs for spiders and nests for birds, I understand. But what evolutionary purpose does the evolution of living things serve…. for nature?

Go here: http://goldennumber.net

[disclaimer: not equating God with scientifically manipulatable nature ]

Technically, nature doesn’t “know”. One could also say that birds and spiders also do not technically “know”. Nature is a being… many beings… like birds and spiders… but it is also just stuff like nests and webs… Or would you say birds and spiders are not beings, either… that they are also just stuff like nests and webs… the question still remains… how can nature do life… how can birds and spiders do nests and webs… especially if they don’t technically “know”?

To me the machinistic nature of nature is like the paint of a painter — and God is the painter, and we are His co-painters (maybe this is why there is randomness… to squeeze in all the creative efforts into the machinery… through the pores of randomness).

There is no rational explanation for a prophet receiving the future if both A) past, present, and future are fixed (necessary to accept when accepting fulfilled prophecy) and B) there is no God to inform the prophet of the future. Why? Because if the past, present, and future are fixed, they cannot “unfix” without God’s allowing it. Prophecy is a form of unfixing, in that a prophet is informed of the future, rather than the future being beyond the prophet. [And I am not talking about coincidences, good guesses or manipulating states of affairs so that they come about the way they are ‘predicted’ to come about.] This won’t have any meaning for you if you have never experienced fulfilled prophecy, or don’t have faith in the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible. But — if there is fulfilled prophecy (if you can grant that), that means the past, present, and future are fixed, and there is a God to inform the prophet of the future. If there is no God — then one is justified in asking for an explanation. If there IS a God, however, it makes perfect sense. And there is a God.

If the past still exists to the future, and the future still exists to the past — is the matter of the future the same matter of the past… does the ‘no energy is created or destroyed’ law apply to the whole universe… where does the past/future matter exist, or is the past matter also the now and future matter?

Everything said about fulfilled prophecy could and has been said about all “created somethings” — if there is no God, there is something missing from the picture that the picture implies by its mere existence. It is an absurdity to even think “if there is no God”.

The only thing left is to say the past, present, and future are not fixed, and explain how the future leaked into the past (present) (via the prophet’s mind)… and why, everytime it does that, it just somehow comes out sounding like a message from God!

If the universe always existed (and that is not proven), it doesn’t need a creator for its existence but it needs a creator for the fact that the past/present/future are mixed. Why it exists (whether or not it always existed or had a beginning) still seems to be a good question to me.

If stuff is spontaneously coming into existence to this day, there is the question of how (since it hasn’t always existed, it needs a creator). It would be kinda funny if the quirky results of all the experiments quantum physicists are doing are examples of God messing around… and them never being able to figure that out. Talk about hilarious.

Even if you insist the material universe always existed — the mixing (of past, present, future) is creative action on the part of the Creator. Therefore, the universe is created and needs a Creator… but the Creator is not created and therefore does not need a Creator. As the Transcendent, He is the “More beyond which there is no more,” [338, Introduction to Philosophy / A Christian Perspective (Geisler, Feinberg)]. We are commanded to examine everything and hold on to that which is good. God is “that which is good”. God is what you get at the end of all the examining. There comes a point when you rest in that.

***

I think it’s pretty cool that humans can’t make life from scratch, the way the universe can. We can only reproduce the already existent raw material, naturally or with technology (test tube, cloning) — but never once have we made life from scratch. We do not have tools tiny enough for such a big project.

And I wonder if any human has considered making conditions favorable in some part of space in order to birth a star? Yeah right, like we’ll ever be able to do that. All we can do is watch the Master.

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Problem of Evil

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Evil is not a surpassing (though those who glorify evil consider it so), it is a degeneration. Of course humans cannot surpass God in stuff where surpassing applies. God would be the perfection implied by ‘degeneration’. It is not God who is degenerating — He is distinct from His creation, though also intimately relating with it. Humans, in the image of God, degenerate apart from Him — the only way back is atonement.

In a sentence: evil is “good messed up”. Without good, you cannot have evil. But – you can have good that is not messed up. You don’t have to have something “messed up” right next to something “not messed up” in order to appreciate the goodness of something that is “not messed up”.

Now, in my “Predestination and Free Will” thread, it pointed out that evil is a “privation” like rust or rot. Evil, rust, and rot do not happen in and of themselves – they happen TO things that start out good. Even if you “don’t know what ya got (good) ‘til it’s rusted and rotten (evil)” – the fact remains, it was good first.

That’s why (if it happened according to Genesis) God said “don’t eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – we’re better off not knowing the difference. We’re better off innocent. We’re better off thinkin’ “It’s all good.” But it would not have been love if He had actually prevented us from making that choice.

Also from the same book I quoted in “Predestination and Free Will”, it points this out:

“(1) Good and evil are either judged by a standard beyond themselves or they are judged by each other.
(2) But if they are judged by a standard beyond themselves, then that is the one and only ultimate by which all is judged (which is actually the theistic definition of “God”).
(3) If good is judged by evil, then evil is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
(4) If evil is judged by good, then good is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
(5) In both cases there is one, not two, ultimate standard (contrary to dualism).

“Further, as Augustine pointed out in reply to the Manichaeans, evil is measured by good and not the reverse. For when we take all that we call evil away from something, then what is left is better (for example, remove all rust from a car and one has a better car). But when we take all that is good from something, then nothing is left. Good, therefore, is the positive and evil is the privation, or lack of good,” (330-331, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective; Geisler, Feinberg).

Now – maybe you got messed up by number 2 up there and began to ask, “Well – if God is the judge of good, then that means God is not good.” Not so. Since when does judging whether or not something is evil or good make you “not good”? All those numbers are saying is that good and evil are not coeternal opposites. God, who is good, is the only eternal ultimate by which good and “the privation (but not opposite) of good” (evil) are judged.

Review this relevant part of that quote I was talking about:

Evil is not a “thing” (or substance). Evil is a privation, or absence of good. Evil exists in another entity (as rust exists in a car or rot exists in a tree), but does not exist in itself. Nothing can be totally evil (in a metaphysical sense). One cannot have a totally rusted car or a totally moth-eaten garment. For if it were completely destroyed, then it would not exist at all. The Christian points to Scripture which says everything God made was “good” (Gen. 1:31); even today “every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:11), and “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). To be sure, the Bible teaches that men are totally depraved in a moral sense, since sin has extended to the whole man, including his mind and will (Rom. 3; Eph. 2). But total depravity is to be taken in an extensive sense (affecting the whole man), not in an intensive sense (destroying the very essence of man).

When the theist says that evil is no “thing” (substance) he is not saying evil is “nothing” (that is, unreal). Evil is a real privation. Blindness is real—it is the real privation of sight. Likewise it is real to be maimed—it is a genuine lack of limb or sense organ.

Evil is not mere absence, however. Arms and eyes are absent in stones, but we would not say that stones are deprived of arms and eyes. A privation is more than an absence; it is an absence of some form or perfection that should be there (by its very nature).

The form or perfection that should be there (by its very nature) is what God started with. Evil came later. So God did not create the devil/demons or the fallen world – He created perfect angels and perfect humans who messed up. But the beauty is – He knew it would happen like that, and He allowed it because He loves us anyway.

Sources I will be using (so far):

Chapter 5: Is God the Source of My Suffering? / “Jesus Among Other Gods” by Ravi Zacharias (Thomas Nelson, 2000).

Chapter 21: The Problem of Evil / “Introduction to Philosophy / A Christian Perspective” by Geisler and Feinberg (Baker Books, 1980).

Five opposing positions you must choose from:

1. Evil exists, therefore the Creator does not exist. This explanation contradicts itself because it implies an objective, transcendent moral law (which is possible to implement within the physical universe, but is not ‘sustained’ by it), which only exists if God exists, and then denies the existence of God.

2. All is god (pantheism) and there is no evil (see Dawkins quote in #3). Hinduism explains perception of evil as induced by ignorance (Zacharias, 120). However, Hinduism’s doctrine of reincarnation, of paying your debt of karma (known to Jews and Christians as the debt of sin — but they see the consequence as death, complete separation from God, rather than seeing the consequence as…), having to suffer through another life (although an infant has done nothing to earn your debt… and what debt did the first human incur?) — inadvertently acknowledges the reality of evil while completely missing the point (see number 5).

3. There is no such thing as evil, because evil implies an objective, transcendent moral law (which is possible to implement within the physical universe, but is not ‘sustained’ by it), which only exists if God exists, and God does not exist. This explanation cannot logically demand an explanation for why God allows evil – it does not allow for the existence of God or evil.

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other god. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music,” [Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 133.] You’ll never believe this, but I wrote “this is the music we dance to” and “let’s go wig out on the dance floor” in my faith thread before I read this quote from Dawkins. I was inspired by a sermon given by a visiting pastor from New Mexico, who used an illustration about a deaf man who tried to dance without hearing music. I was also inspired by a comment made by a person from another forum (the wig out thing). I wasn’t aware Dawkins had also said something similar. Stuff like this happens to me all the time.

4. Dualism: “good and evil in eternal opposition”.

5. God allows evil because He cannot compel us to love. “In a world where love is the supreme ethic, freedom must be built in,” (Zacharias, 118). Evil is the result of our not choosing to love God (and everything He is about).

*******

The first and fourth positions are the ones that bring up all the interesting “problem of evil” arguments.

***

A form of what some call evil has been brought up. The suffering of an innocent. The cause of all suffering is that this is a fallen world, this is not the world as God would have it, the world that would result if we all followed His will. That world would have no suffering (and some of what we would now call suffering would be endured with more strength/love). That world is in the future. This is the world that is necessary in order for that world to come about.

If it is always up to Him to end that suffering (of an innocent), then it is never up to us. Why should it never be up to us? Should God only and always end the suffering of the innocent — how do you think that would effect the psyches of the guilty? To whom did Christ come — those who are innocent, or those who are guilty? What would you do if that suffering was ended — give God the glory, or figure the suffering ended naturally? Have you asked God to end that suffering? What have you done about that suffering, but moan about a God you don’t believe exists — moan about how He can be so unjust and evil as to allow an innocent to suffer — when you deny that very evil? We are the stewards of this earth and every living being in it. We are given the responsibility of doing what we are moaning God should be doing. Such moaning is passing the buck. This is reality — and you are the tool God would use to end that suffering. Stop b****ing and start a revolution!

***

Zondervan’s NASB study bible note on Job 2:10 — “Trouble and suffering are not merely punishment for sin; for God’s people they may serve as a trial (as here) or as a discipline that culminates in spiritual gain (see 5:17; Deut 8:5; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps. 94:12; Prov 3:11-12; 1 Cor 11:32; Heb 12:5-11).”

***

Replace the first quote with the second quote (both taken from “Introduction to Philosophy / A Christian Perspective” (Geisler, Feinberg) —

(1) If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.
(2) If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.
(3) But evil is not destroyed.
(4) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.

(1) If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
(2) If He is all-powerful, He will defeat evil.
(3) Evil is not yet defeated.
(4) Therefore evil will one day be defeated.

And, I will discuss (if you want) the idea that “this is not the best of all possible worlds”. The argument:

(1)If there is a morally perfect God, then He must always do His best, morally speaking.
(2) But this world is not the morally best world possible.
(3) Therefore, there is no morally perfect God.

The counter-argument:

The problem with this argument from a theistic standpoint is premise 2. First, it may be that this world is not the best world but only the best way to get to the best world. This world may only be a precondition of perfection, the way tribulation is a precondition to patience, and the like. Second, the argument contains an ambiguity in the word possible. Does it mean “best world logically conceivable” or “best world actually achievable”? It may very well be that in the progress of the world toward its final point of perfection, this world is the best world presently achievable. Perhaps God is maximizing good in the world today and at every moment, given the limits of (a) human behavior and (b) the stage of progress toward the final goal. Today’s world is certainly not the best world conceivable and (humanly speaking) hopefully is not the best world ultimately achievable, but it could be the best world achievable today.

Posted in Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

Authentic Truth in an Authentic Community

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

This may come out sort of mumbled.

This morning the sermon focused on authenticity. I had no pen and no paper, which is unusual, so I’m having to write this from sleepy memory, and quickly.

But, basically the idea is that thinking of God’s truth as only for the seminary graduates and pastors, and only relevant on Sundays in church, is making the same mistake Plato makes about a higher world of Forms.

God’s truth is applicable in the everyday, and accessible to every person.

We can question it and test it, because it will stand up to the test, and we are commanded to test all things, and hold on to what is good. And we should live and proclaim God’s excellent, authentic truths everyday and to everyone, if we are to be authentic.

The message was backed up with verses out of 1 Peter 2, Acts 2, and somewhere else I forget. The ONE time I forget pen and paper…!!!

***

Well, fortunately Pastor had another go at the sermon, and fleshed it out a bit – and this time I had pen and paper.

The relevant verses were Acts 2:42-47; Matt 5:13-16 and 9:9-13.

Notes I took (not all of the words came out of the Pastor’s mouth… I reword things to fit with what I already know… I memorize it better that way):

Two sermons in the series that I missed:
Authentic truth – Jesus’ life interprets; bounce it off others, don’t be afraid to question
Authentic people – who we are in Christ

Where we are at in the series:
Authentic mission – proclaim excellencies (authentic truth) to God in worship, to believers in discipleship, and to unbelievers in evangelism

Plains of Plato (not good) – don’t leave authentic truth to “professionals”
Steeple mentality – “come to us” is wrong – GO… impact the culture… to whom did Jesus go?

Matthew 9:9-13 —
1. Matthew (dreaded tax collector, went on to write gospel of Matthew) at the top of “most unlikely to succeed” list (see “Lord calls the lowly” thread – this is how God works… a form of miracle)
2. Jesus kicked back with him on his own turf
3. Jesus took the disciples with Him
4. Jesus didn’t worry about what the churchy people thought
5. Matthew 9:13 go and learn what this means
6. religiosity misses the point, I desire your heart (love people)

Show mercy: take initiative to go to them and help… think of the baggage associated with Matthew. Look at the results of what happened in his life. Redemption.

Great Commission is faith building and we are commanded to do it.

Christianity is all about a personal relationship with our Savior… and, because the point is love, community is important. God’s truths are subject to (and stand up to) peer review in an authentic community…

“Authentic Community” notes

Luke 6:12-37; Acts 2:42-47

Problems with living missionally, without at the same time living in authentic community: corruption, not knowing all the answers yourself, persecution

Problems if you don’t live missionally in authentic community: become bored believer, in danger of drifting away

Living in authentic community: getting together around a common theme: Christ… transcends location. Only takes 2.

Jesus’ authentic community went from the 70 to the 12 disciples, to the closer disciples like John and Peter. After choosing the 12, he lays out the values of the community, which have a “one shoulder in/one shoulder out” mentality… an inward and an outward focus.

Without the outward focus, the community can become sectarian, a cult, and encounter all the problems of not living missionally (see above). Without the inward focus you have all the problems of living missionally without authentic community (see above).

One shoulder in: In the beatitudes it says blessed are you who acknowledge that you are weak, and woe to you who consider yourselves strong (see my “Lord calls the lowly” thread). Those who acknowledge their weakness open themselves to something greater – God and authentic community. Those who think they are strong, settle for less, rob themselves of God and authentic community. [ An aside to Satyr – in the ‘evil’ thread, you mention innocent/guilty are concepts invented by the weak. I’ve heard others say they are concepts invented by the strong to control the weak. What do you say about that? This sermon points out that an elite community is still community… still a type of herd. It seems like calling a larger herd a herd, while belonging to a smaller herd, is like calling a larger restaurant full of many people a restaurant, while eating in a smaller restaurant with less people in it. Make it sound like an insult, and people, if they don’t stop and think about it, will get all defensive over nothing. Saying, “Yeah, that’s just it, though…. They don’t stop and think,” misses the fact that you are the one pointing out a speck in their eye that is not a speck but a pupil, when you have in your own eye a log that is not a log. That is utterly pointless – more pointless than failing to stop and think. It is an abuse of thought. ]

One shoulder out: Also in the beatitudes it points out that even sinners lend/love to those who repay/love them back…. And Jesus says to go beyond that and lend/love expecting nothing in return – lend/love in a way that transcends this world. From where I sit, Nietzsche was saying “go back” not “go beyond”. If you disagree, say why.

In vv. 17-19 before beatitudes, you see Jesus living missionally and in authentic community at the same time.

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment