Christianity

• 16 Comments

•

Gen 3:4-7a But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked(...)

(vv.22-24)Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (ESV)

I was in Starbucks yesterday before meeting an old friend for coffee.  At the table next to me were you young men - one of the still quite young, either in middle school or early high school.  The other one was a bit older, maybe college age.  They were reading Scripture and taking notes.  I asked them what they were studying and the older one looked at me, duh.  "the Bible."  Okay...yeah.  What part of the Bible?  They were reading through Genesis and Psalms.  Cool.

That side-note from yesterday over, I've noticed a couple of things from Genesis 3.

- Did sin enter the world through Eve?  She played a part, certainly.  But Scripture does NOT say, "the woman ate, her eyes were opened, she gave it to the man and his eyes were opened.  Either it was a total joint effort (the time involved not being defined) or...their eyes were NOT opened until after Adam ate because (a) Adam was the only one who was given the direct command by God and/or (b) Eve was deceived, but Adam rebelled.

Question:  if sin entered the world after Adam ate (and not after Eve ate), does that mean that Adam truly is the "federal head" of the human race, since when Eve ate it did not effect their "eyes being opened" until after Adam ate?
-  Were Adam and Eve punished for eating the fruit?  Yes.  What was the punishment?  Read the curse...pain in childbirth, subjugation to the husband...sweat of the brown, weeds (and I'm thinking mosquitoes) and so forth.

Was being sent from the garden of Eden part of the punishment?  A plain reading of the text says...no.  That surprised me.  My answer (before reading verse by verse) would have been, "of course."
Being driven from the garden of Eden was not part of the spoken "curse".  It was not part of the punishment, it was a preventative measure:  "lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever...the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden."

Question:  Why did God not make being driven out of the garden part of the spoken curse?  (from a philosophical standpoint and not reading into Scripture that which is not there)
- Were BOTH Adam and Even driven out, or just Adam?

I have heard egalitarians argue that it was only the man who was driven out of the garden and that the woman followed out of choice, since it is אדם who was driven out.

I have also heard egalitarians argue that we should have gender-neutral language in Scripture because אדם also means "human race".

If אדם means "human-kind" then it is certainly a proper reading to say that "human-kind" (אדם) were driven out of the garden...both of them.

If it was only the male-type-person (אדם) who was driven out of the garden, that argues against gender-neutral language anywhere else in the Old Testament were אדם is used, unless there is a gender-specific name to go along with it.

Question:  Which is it?  Does אדם mean the only male-type-person was driven out of the garden, or that or human-kind was driven out of the garden?

•

Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
MzEllen's Law: "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one."

Godwin wrote: "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,"

Well, when a person compares [something] to Islam, I'd like them to think a bit harder about

  • female circumcision
  • honor killings
  • forced arranged marriages
  • beheadings for being raped.
  • being stoned to death for pre-marital intercourse.
  • being killed by your father for dating the wrong boy
  • being stabbed by your brother for going to a dance club

I want you to think a bit harder about those things.
Again, MzEllen's Law (if it's out there someplace else, let me know!)

"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one."

From Wiki:

The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge. By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."

"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Islam or Muslims approaches one."

•

Born July 10, 1509 in Noyon, France, Jean Calvin was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic family. The local bishop employed Calvin's father as an administrator in the town's cathedral. The father, in turn, wanted John to become a priest. Because of close ties with the bishop and his noble family, John's playmates and classmates in Noyon (and later in Paris) were aristocratic and culturally influential in his early life.

Like many (most) of the early Reformers, Calvin was born in the Roman Catholic church.  Like Luther, Calvin has a disagreement with his father over how his life would be spent.

By 1528 Calvin moved to Orleans to study civil law. The following years found Calvin studying in various places and under various scholars, as he received a humanist education. By 1532 Calvin finished his law studies and also published his first book, a commentary on De Clementia by the Roman philosopher, Seneca. The following year Calvin fled Paris because of contacts with individuals who through lectures and writings opposed the Roman Catholic Church. It is thought that in 1533 Calvin experienced the sudden and unexpected conversion that he writes about in his foreword to his commentary on the Psalms.

I recall that in the time of Calvin, "humanist" didn't carry the negative meaning that it does now.

(per wiki)

Renaissance Humanism was a European intellectual movement beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century. The humanist movement developed from the rediscovery by European scholars of many Latin and Greek texts. Initially, a humanist was simply a teacher of Latin literature. By the mid-15th century humanism described a curriculum — the studia humanitatis — comprising grammar, rhetoric, moral philosophy, poetry and history as studied via classical authors. The early beliefs of humanism were that, although humanists knew that God created the universe, it was humans that developed and industrialised it.

And later...

By 1536 Calvin had disengaged himself from the Roman Catholic Church and made plans to permanently leave France and go to Strasbourg. However, war had broken out between Francis I and Charles V, so Calvin decided to make a one-night detour to Geneva.

But Calvin's fame in Geneva preceded him. Farel, a local reformer, invited him to stay in Geneva and threatened him with God's anger if he did not. Thus began a long, difficult, yet ultimately fruitful relationship with that city.

It was in Geneva that Calvin did the bulk of his writing, studying and teaching.  He remained there until his death in 1564.

• 6 Comments

•

"Speaking in tongues" is not only a Christian  phenomenon.  Regardless of whether or not the "gift" is for today, one still cannot point at speaking in tongues as "proof" that they are baptized in the Holy Spirit.

~~~

History of the Church 1:295-297, November 1832: "About the 8th of November I received a visit from Elders Joseph Young, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball of Mendon, Monroe county, New York. They spent four or five days at Kirtland, during which we had many interesting moments. At one of our interviews, Brother Brigham Young and John P. Greene spoke in tongues, which was the first time I had heard this gift among the brethren; others also spoke, and I [Joseph Smith] received the gift myself."

While Mormons share our Scriptures (while translating and interpreting them differently) and are (in their own sense) followers of Christ (although not a Christ who is in full equality and deity with the Father), are not "saved", in the way we are.

~~~
The Oracle at Delphi needed interpreters to pass along her "wisdom".  There is speculation as to whether or not the wisdom was "tongues" or "riddles" that needed interpreting.  There does also seem to be some indication that the trance of the Oracle was due to some intoxicating substances that seeped out of the lower regions of the cave that she prophesied from.

This is not a wonderful example, but it does indicate that "ecstatic speech" was an indicator of the prophetic in religions other than Christianity - and before Christ walked on earth.

~~~

in 1956 Carlyle May wrote an article in "American Anthropologist", "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religion."  I cannot get to the entire article, but the first page is here.

"Ecstatic vocalization in the form of incoherent sounds and foreign words has long been on interest to students of religion.  (...)This paper will show that glossolalia and similar speech-phenomena occur in various forms during shamanistic rites of the New and especially of the Old World. (...)

Herodotus (Lombard 1910:90) speaks of an inspired priest in Greece who suddenly spoke in a barbarian language, and Virgil in the Aeneid (1953: vi. 44-49, 97-99) tells of a Cumaean sibyl who spoke strangely while possessed.  The Old Testament (Lombard 1910:89) alludes to a form of ecstatic behavior similar to glossolalia.   Guillaume (1938:144-45) states that in 853 B.C. four hundren prophets raved in ecstasy before the gate of Samaria, and in ancient Egypt (Erman 1894:352-55) necromancers uttered formulas, believed to be revelations from the gods, made up of foreign words and senseless noises.  The more mysterious and incomprehensible these formulas were, the greater their power was thought to be.

~~~

What about xenoglossia?

  • Swarnlatta Mishra:[1] A girl in India who lived entirely among Hindi-speaking people but was able to sing songs in Bengali, as identified by Professor P. Pal of Itachuna College in West Bengal, who studied the case after Professor Stevenson and transcribed some of the songs.
  • Uttara Huddar:[2] Uttara was a woman in India who normally spoke Marathi but, after participating in a meditation during a hospitalization, began speaking in Bengali, much to the bewilderment of her parents.
  • Two hypnotic regression cases: Professor Stevenson is quite skeptical of most hypnotic regression work but he did have two cases that included responsive xenoglossy; that is, hypnotic subjects who could converse with people speaking the foreign language, instead of merely being able to recite foreign words. One is that of Jensen[3], an American woman who, while under hypnosis conducted by her physician husband, described being a Swedish peasant farmer and was able to converse in Swedish. The other is Gretchen[4], an American woman who was hypnotized by her Methodist minister husband and began spontaneously speaking in German. She described the life of a teenaged girl in Germany, and Professor Stevenson, who is able to speak German, was able to converse with her. (from wiki...hopefully the links to the citations are there, the link to the page is here.

~~~

It seems clear that (whatever "tongues" is) and whether or not "tongues" is for today, that the phonomena is not limited to Christianity, or even to religion.

In "testing the spirits", we need to look at all the evidence and not blindly follow.  It may very well be real (in some cases and in some cases not), but we need to look realistically.

•

Another Pair of Hands Poem

The skills of the hands used in a gesture of love
Sends receiver and giver blessings from above
For the nature of hands outstretched holds within such a power
They console and comfort at each and every hour

Through hunger, thirst, discomfort and pain
Another Pair of Hands helps share the strain
Of the misery and woe man inflicts on another
Held gently in Prayer the hands find our Father

And it is he who teaches, instructs and guides
He who calls us to explore the treasures we hold inside
Called to release our love like an ever-flowing stream
To elevate others to achieve their dreams

And so as His foot-soldiers we wait and accept God’s call
To out-stretch our hands to one and all.

• 25 Comments

•

I understand that the metaphor breaks down (metaphors do).

I understand that a wife does not exist to worship her husband (nor should she).  If the comment thread goes in that direction...it would be a bad idea.

I understand that a husband is not God (see above note about the comment thread).

What Can We Learn From Adam and Eve?

1) Eve was not a "less than".  Adam was the only creature that was created in the way that he was and Eve was the only creature created in the way that she was.

2) Eve was created to be a helper fit for Adam.  "ezer" was not in any way a "less-than" term.  It is used to describe God and it is used to describe help from God.  To be an "ezer" from God is to have a very special role and (I would think) would be a privilege and honor.  This is what Eve was created for.
3)  Eve was created to be a companion.  God said, "It is not good for man to be alone", and then, "I will make a helper for him."  One flesh - bone of my bone.  This is what Eve was created for.

My belief in reading all of this (including the parallels of a husband and wife to Christ and the church) is that Eve, created second, created as a helper and created "out of" man - was the...well...helper.  She (as helper) would have filled the need that Adam had for another "pair of hands".  God set the "job description", Adam set the path within that job description and Eve (by defintion as helper) helped.

How does that relate to Christ and the church?

How often have we heard the line, "Jesus with skin on?"   We (the church) are the representatives of Christ walking around on this green earth.

There is a job to be done, set by the Bridegroom.  Spread the gospel.  Protect the weak.  Feed the hungry.  Care for the homeless.

God, the Trinity, set the job description.  Christ gave us the "Great Commission".  The bride of Christ is His representative on earth to carry out the plan.

And a husband and wife?

God sets the job description - what are we supposed to do?  The husband (if the wife is to submit to her husband as Christ submits to the church) sets the path and the wife (as ezer) is his helping hands.

Does this make her "less than"?  No - it gives her an honorable part in the job that Christ has given.

Does it make the husband "more than"?  In the plan of Christ, no.  It gives him the burden of making (and taking responsibility for) the working out of the plan.

What can we learn from Christ and the church by looking at the first husband and wife?

Unity.  Job descriptions.  Honor in both roles.  Honor in service.  Job descriptions written by God.

•

Resolved, To act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings, as others, and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

•

I am Reformed, but not rabidly so.  I believe the Solas and I  am pretty sure about TULIP (really sure about the "T").  I think that you could say that I'm "Calvinistic" in sotierology, but not in ecclesiology.
Since yesterday was 499 and we have a year until #500, it seems like a good idea to put a little bit of focus on Calvin and other Reformers.

Passions run high over religion...they always have and most likely always will.  We can attempt to look at history and theology as best we can.

I grew up Arminian (or at least mostly) and my entire family is in Arminian churches now.  My brother-in-law is a pastor and (on my husband's side) my sister-in-law is an elder.  Most of my adult life has been spent in Arminian churches.  I had been looking at the Calvinism v. Arminian debate for a while...then one day I was talking with my kids and asked them if they remember where and when they were saved.

My son knew.  Where he was, who was with him.

My daughter..."Mom, do you mean the first time, or all the rest of the times?"

That was when I started looking for a "Calvinistic" church.

• 8 Comments

•

Why do I believe "wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord..." and stop?  Because I'm reading my own mail.

My submission to my husband (when he was alive) did not depend on him loving me as the Christ loves the church.  Reading my own mail, I see my role.

Did I confront him?  Yes.  Did I enlist the help of the pastor?  Yes.  Did I pray?  Yes.

Did that stop me from submitting?  No.

God's Word to me is still God's Word, whether nor not somebody else obeys their Word.

I remember a great turning point in my Christian walk - the day I realized that my walk with God did not depend upon my husband's walk with God.

Could I follow his lead when he provided it?  Absolutely.  I can follow my pastor's lead, but my walk is still my responsibility.

Does being my own responsibility relieve me from submission?  Not at all, rather my submission is a part of my own responsibility.

Read my own mail.

That is why I seldom write about a man's part in a marriage.  It largely does not concern me - When I write "God-stuff", it is about what things are beginning to mean to me.  Yes, I recognize the command to men and believe that a marriage requires that a husband love his wife as Christ loves the church.

But that is reading HIS mail.  I know what to look for, but in my search to grow myself, I read my own mail;  thus, most of my writing on marriage and love relationships is written from a woman's perspective, toward a woman's "mail."

I feel absolutely NO obligation (zero) to instruct men.  I'm not a man, I don't face their challenges.  It's not my mail.

•

"Total Depravity" matters.

It matters because if there is some little bit of good in us, then we can somehow try to earn our salvation.

Mormons say, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we saved, after all we can do." (II Nephi 25:22) - emphasis mine

Total depravity matters, because if we can earn our salvation, there is no need for a savior.

We are not just a little "sick", so that we can get better and so attain salvation.

No - we are DEAD in our sin. We can no more walk toward our own salvation than Lazarus was able to walk out of his tomb before Christ called him.

It is not until we understand the depth of our sin that we can fully understand our need for our Saviour.

It is not until we see how bad we are, that we see how good God is.

How Deep The Father’s Love For Us

Words and Music by Stuart Townend
©1995 Kingsway's Thankyou Music

How deep the Father's love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That He would give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon a cross
My guilt upon His shoulders
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no powr's, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom