Tag Archives: Christianity

•

★★★★★★I don't like to review books that I haven't finished, but this one I just can't get through. (yes, it got zero stars)

It's based on the "twelve step program" of AA, which leans heavily on Scripture.

The program itself may be great and I know people who have gotten their lives together with the help of AA. But this book (I'm not going back) is also heavily laced with

1. Arminianism
2. Finneyism
3. "Sarah Calling" (another review of a book that I didn't get through)

I got more than 2/3 done, but then it started with "the most important part of prayer is the listening."

I put it back in the cloud...

• 2 Comments

•

I love religion. I know it's popular to parrot the "I hate religion" mantra these days, and I understand what those saying it are trying to say - they don't like it when people abuse religion for personal gain, whether that gain is financial, personal, or whether it just to make themselves feel better.

But to say "I hate religion" is an abuse of the word "religion," which is actually a pretty morally neutral word. To assign a neutral word a meaning that it was never intended to carry is an abuse of the word.

We don't want the political gay agenda to change the meaning of the word "marriage" - well, don't change the meaning of the word "religion." When somebody abuses it, reclaim it.

    - the service or worship of God (If you - generic, not specific "you" hate that, I'm not sure what to say)
    - the commitment or devotion to religious faith or devotion - again, I'm not sure why anyone would hate that.
    - a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes or practice. Our Christian beliefs that connect us with nearly 2,000 years of people of faith who have gone before us? Yeah...those

.

I love these things that add up to: religion.

I am committed to, and devoted to, the service and worship of God - that is, my religious faith.

What spurred this post, is the book "Affirming the Apostles' Creed" by J.I.Packer. That institutionalized system of beliefs is best summed up in the "Apostles' Creed"

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN

.
and can I hear another AMEN?

what part of this would any Christian hate?

•

"The Heresy of Orthodoxy"

In the first chapter, Kruger frames the direction of the book.

If "heresy" (divergent thinking) was the order of the day in the first and second century, and it wasn't until Rome had enough power to vote orthodoxy into place, heresy came first - and was the norm.  The idea that there was and "orthodoxy" was heretical (outside of common thinking)

However:

If the writers of New Testament Scripture were unified in doctrine (although not necessarily practice), then there was an "orthodoxy" ("conforming to established doctrine especially in religion" - per Merriam-Webster) before the word "orthodoxy" was used.

~~~

My thinking is that if God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the writers, He would not have inspired them to say conflicting things. (1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.) There is no conflicting doctrinal statements in Scripture.

Yes, there was divergent thinking in the early church. Paul addressed it.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:6-7

So there were doctrinal differences, but it was not a good thing.

What Walter Bauer misses is the men who codified "orthodoxy" He treats the topic as if they all just got together one day and decided to vote on what they liked best, and "orthodoxy" is no more correct (or incorrect) than the "different gospel."

In this case, "heresy" became heresy because of orthodoxy.

But...if what happened was that false teaching was becoming more prevalent and needed to be addressed by church leadership as a whole, they would have gathered together in prayer and study, in order to determine from Scripture what "orthodoxy" was. They weren't looking for what was most popular, they were looking for what was most true. Orthodoxy was codified in response to heresy - but it was present from the start.

In this case, "orthodoxy" came before heresy.

•

This is a bit from "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology" (I have a few comment underneath)

The Center of the Theology of the New Testament Letters:  The authors of these twenty-one letters are radically united in the proclamation of bizarre ideas.

To see this, let us engage in a bit of contrastive analysis, contemplating what these authors did not do and what their letters do not advocate.

Rome was not their kingdom, and they were not trying to make it home. They sought the city that is to come. Not one of these authors gave his life to address the systemic injustice of the Roman Empire by means of political reform. Not one of these authors went the way of Josephus and sought to cozy up to the emperor, though Paul seems to have had opportunities to seek such “influence” with some high-ranking officials. Not one of these authors did or said anything about trying to stop Rome from fighting its wars. Not one of them championed the idea that the government should take money from the rich and redistribute it equally to the poor, nor did they leave the ministry to advocate a government of greater fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes, and increased national security. Not one of these authors taught that the way to change the world is by initiating a universal, government-funded education program. Not one of these authors was out to make as much money as he possibly could. Not one of these authors embraced one of the popular philosophies of the day, nor did they seek to synthesize the message of Jesus with the spirit of their age. None of them advocated higher moral standards in society at large (outside the church), nor did they lobby for universal health care or a revised definition of marriage that would legitimate same-sex unions.  None of them seem to have cared whether anyone reading their letters would be perceived by the broader culture as hip, savvy, chic, or cool. They had a different program.

These authors believed that the decisive event in the story of the world had taken place. God loved the world by sending his Son, condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, poured out all his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and accomplished salvation through that ultimate display of justice. God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples by proclaiming the good news.

How did they go about carrying out this commission? They all basically did the same thing. None appears to have sought to carry out the commission through political or educational institutions. According to the book of Acts, they simply told people, whether groups or individuals, who God is, what he had accomplished in Jesus, and what this implied for them. God accomplished salvation through judgment in Jesus, and the implication for every auditor of the message is that they would either believe and be saved or disobey (be unpersuaded by) the gospel and be judged. Through the announcement of judgment, the saved rejoiced in and glorified God. The converts, those who believed the message, were gathered into congregations, churches. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to elders who led these churches.

The authors of the letters studied in this chapter wrote what they did to form, instruct, and protect the churches. Their message is that God has glorified himself by working salvation through judgment in fulfillment of the Old Testament in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their message is that there is a way of life that evidences belief in that message, and a way of life that does not. Their message is that God has sent the Spirit, who has given new life to those who believe; and the Spirit will keep them to the end, so that on the last day, when Christ comes to save through judgment, they will be those who glorify God for his mercy. The center of the theology of the letters of the New Testament is the glory of God in salvation through judgment.

I think where this goes sideways is the apparent false dichotomy between political activism and spreading the gospel.  Does spreading the gospel rule out being politically active?

If one of the messages of Scripture is that Christians should pursue justice, one way to do that is through the political system.

Other than that...the authors of Scripture wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted them to write.  No more, no less.

•

I'm reading  "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology."

The main message in the book tells that throughout redemptive history, God has shown us a pattern.

Man sins, God judges, God redeems His people.

Only after judgement, can salvation come.  Without judgement, why do we need salvation at all?

Only through judgement can God's holiness shine, can salvation come, can the remnant be redeemed.

 

•

By Dinesh D'Souza:

Here in the West, there are lots of liberal Christians. Some of them have assumed a kind of reverse mission: instead of being the church's missionaries to the world, they have become the world's missionaries to the church. They devote their moral energies to trying to make the church more democratic, to assure equal rights for women, to legitimize homosexual marriage, and so on. A small but influential segment of liberal Christianity rejects all the central doctrines of Christianity. H. Richard Hiebuhr famously summed up their credo: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

I have met liberal Christians who are good and sincere people. But their version of Christianity is retreating, in two senses. Liberal Christians are distinguished by how much intellectual and moral ground they concede to the adversaries of Christianity: "Granted, no rational person today can believe in miracles, but..." "True, the Old Testament God seems a mighty vengeful fellow, but..." "Admittedly religion is responsible for most of the conflict and oppression in history, but..."

This yes-but Christianity in full intellectual withdrawal, and it is also becoming less relevant. * * *

Unfortunately, the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the national Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement. Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco's gay pride parade?

This is quote I try to keep on hand.

What really struck me was the "Christ's missionary to the world" vs. "the world's missionary to the church."

•

This was on the back of a magazine a few years ago and a friend made a file of it and saved it. I want to keep it handy.

~~~

August 20, 2027

Dear Mom,

I'm not sure how to tell you this, but Jenny is becoming such a burden on our family here. Ever since her addition to the family in '24, she has been nothing but problems for us: finding a school, daycare, and even clothing have cost us money. After four years, her brother still isn't getting used to sharing his room with her, being as she's so curious about everything and goes through his things. She's so cute and she is showing signs of real intelligence.

We've discussed the problem with our pastor, and he said that sometimes, difficult decisions have to be made. We decided to seek the help of the state Family Planning and Assistance Center and we think we've come up with the best solution. Jeff is only a few years older than she is, so I don't think he'll understand where she went or remember her for long. We plan on telling her friends that she moved. We made the appointment as soon as they could get us a spot, they're so busy. Jenny has no idea of what it is, she thinks she's going for her vaccinations so she can start school with her friends next month. I'm not concerned since the shot is relatively painless and the whole termination process takes only five minutes, she won't feel a thing.

Mom, I don' t want you to think that we don't love her, we do, but it's just not fair to continue to keep her in a world where she's unwanted. A world of wanted children would be a better place, don't you think? Please, don't give us any of that "right-to-life" grief that grandma gave you about abortions, you know I don't believe in that garbage. I believe no one has the right to control how or when I choose to raise my family. At least they've barred those religious bigots from preaching that Jesus stuff at the centers. Well, anyway, I guess it's good that you and Dad never really spent much time with her, or it might make you feel different. Love to Dad. Let us know if you want some of her ashes.

Sincerely,

Patti

P.S. I just found out that the IdentiChip we had to have put in her hand is returnable, so you and Dad can get your loan back.

•

I started reading "Journeying Through Lent with Matthew" and the author wrote about the ashes that were used when he went through the ceremony with his congregation.

We are dust.  Nothing.

If we are nothing, what (or Who) makes us something?

Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:39 (ESV)

If I determine to focus on the Giver of Life, what becomes of me?

at the end of the daily devotional,

But the cross remains, marking us invisibly and indelibly.  Jesus knew:  the death of self is the path to the resurrection and the life.

~~~

I generally start out Lent with a determination.  Last year I gave up wheat.  I had to think about what I put into my mouth, read labels and I realized how little thought I gave to what I ate.

this year - a sacrifice and a discipline.

candy (this is hard) and blogging every day.

So far, so good.

• 1 Comment

•

this Resurgence post, "You Are Not Jesus" nails it.

the more I hear fake gospels, the more I long for the real one.

The gospel is the good news that God sent his perfect Son Jesus Christ to live, die, and resurrect on behalf of sinners, to save their souls and reconcile them to God.

As important as it is to do good works, care for the poor, nobody becomes a Christian and enters into eternal life because we gave somebody a sandwich; They get saved because they hear the preaching of the news of Jesus.

I love the way Paul explains it in Titus 2:10-11.  He gives the "law" (to do list) and then gives us the "done list"

"...but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people..."

It is because we have Christ, that we do good works.  But our good works are not the good news.