Tag Archives: Christianity

• 1 Comment

•

I am not a fan of Jeanie Miley - and I'm not a fan of "meditation" (Eastern religion style).  But this book has some good points.  It's out of print now, but Amazon still has links to book sellers who have it.

The thrust of the devotionals is that we can reach out for Christ, know Him better, become more like Him - by getting into the Gospels, meditating on the Word, seeing the narratives from different points of view.

From the introduction:

An old tale from the desert fathers related by George Maloney in his book "Why Not Become Totally Fire?" tells of a disciple who went to Abba Joseph and said, "Father, according to my strength I sing a few psalms, I pray and fast a little, I meditate, and as well as I can I cleanse my thoughts  Now what more can I do?"

Abba Joseph stood up, spreading his hands toward heaven.  His fingers were like ten lamps of fire.

"If you want," Abba Joseph said, "why not become totally fire?"

Encountering Jesus through the stories in the Gospels is a way of becoming fire.

The first few devotionals are based on John 1:35-39

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"

They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

•

cAs usual, the extremes are where the problem lies.

On one hand, the link of centering prayer to the meditations of Easthern religions might be seen as a bad thing.  One another hand, even the most vile untruths may contain a kernel of something we can use.  The danger is in trying to sort it out.

A long time ago I bought a book, "Becoming Fire" by Jeanie Miley.  I disagree with a lot of what Miley teaches...but this book was very helpful to me at a critical part of my life.

Looking at definitions:

contemplate: To consider carefully and at length; meditate on or ponder: contemplated the problem from all sides; contemplated the mystery of God.

Meditate: To engage in devotional contemplation, especially prayer.

And I'm reminded of this passage

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Phil 4:8)

Anyway...back to the book.  Miley takes several Scripture passages about the life of Christ and turns them into devotional meditations...she asks the reader to look at the passages from the viewpoints of different people within the passage; to put oneself in those shoes.

Then, read the passage...again.  and again.  And then spend 20 minutes going over the passage in your head...just you and Scripture.

Does that sound like a bad thing?

• 1 Comment

•

The "L" - "limited atonement" - AKA "definite atonement", "particular redemption".

I know what the doctrine means, but there are folks out there who can put it much more simply than I can.  From wiki:

The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

Removing the "predestination" language, which is a debate all unto itself, we can "universalize" that definition.

Some folks define "predestined" to mean "those who God knew, from eternity, who would (in the future) believe).  That's fine...for the purpose of explaining "limited atonement", we can use "those who will believe".

If I try to simplify, what I come up with is

"Limited atonement" means that Christ's suffering and death on the cross made atonement only for those who believe."

(my brain is working at half-speed - thank you, nyquil)

If we want to define "limited atonement", we need to define "atonement".  Here we can get into a spiral:  atonement = expiation = atonement, etc...(it is here I go off on a tangent, reading Anshelm...Subsitutionary vs. Satisfaction - which for the purpose of definition doesn't seem to matter much)

I found a "definition" of "atonement" that is more of a graphic than a definition.

"atonement" = at-one-ment.  Sort of romantic, actually.

Who has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made "at one" with God?  Whose sins are paid for?

If the sins of all the people in all the world are paid for, how can God justly send anybody to hell?  They've been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.

In the end, everybody except Universalists limit the scope of the atoning blood of Christ.

Outside of Universalism, both sides limit the effectiveness of atonement (atonement being the actual payment - either Christ being the our substitute on the cross OR Christ satisfying our debt to the Father on the cross).  In unlimited atonement, the death of Christ does not pay the penalty for the sins of the unsaved; they go to the grave still owing the debt.  In unlimited atonement, Christ is not the substitute

If atonement is limited to those who believe, then Christ's blood paid the penalty in a very effective way and it does exactly what it was meant to do:  purchase souls.

If atonement is universal (for every person who every lived), then Christ's blood effectually purchases nothing, it merely raises the possibility of salvation.

Either atonement is limited, and only the sins of some are paid for; some are saved, or atonement is unlimited, and all sins are paid for and none will go to hell.

Has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made all "at one" with the Father?   Is the scope of effectiveness of the payment limited to those who believe?

OR

Is all of mankind "at one" with the Father?  All are bought and paid for, all have been purchased and all will find eternal life?

I started this post with an eye toward 1 John 2:2.

  • Does the "whole world" mean every person who is living or who has ever lived?  Is the scope of atonement unlimited?
  • Or does "whole world" have a meaning that is pointed at "people groups" - Jews vs. the "whole world" (Gentiles).

Unless Universalism is true and all people, of all times are bought and paid for, if their sins are covered, and all will go to heaven, then atonement is limited...the question is:  who limits it.

• 4 Comments

•

The "L" part of TULIP..."Limited Atonenent".

Also known as "definite atonement" or "particular redemption".

Now...I'm going to take this post in an entirely different and political course.

On another blog, I'm hearing about our "Christian" Bible calling Jews "children of the devil" and I'm hearing about the sinful history of the persecution of Jews by Christians.

Yes.  It happened.  Yes.  It was sin.

The popular epitaph is "Christ-killer".

Who took Christ's life?

John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

My first question:  if Christ had not been crucified, where would we be?  The "religious Jews" were instruments of God, prophecied.   Jesus' death was the necessary sacrifice, ordained by the Father from the beginning of time.  If God had demanded the sacrifice, are the people who brought that sacrifice about to blame?

Now...on to "the L".

From a Reformed perspective, who is responsible for the death of Christ?   When I was an Arminian, my answer would have been "all of us".

But if I buy into the "L", that is not the right answer.

The short definition of "limited atonement" is: Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.

If Christ's redeeming work was intended to save only those who would believe on Christ the Saviour, His blood in not on the hands of the Jews, it is not on the hands of unbelievers.

The blood of Christ is on my hands.  My hands...the hands of a believer.

Romans 5:8-11  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!  For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

That is the "L".   The "L" lays the blame of Christ's death on me.

•

So offensive, in fact that I refuse to return to a site that has the button in the sidebar.

Personally, I would not compare a spiritual sibling to a religion that condones violence and death as a means to an end...that end being the silencing of anybody who disagrees with them.

I have in my personal library,  the book "Infidel" by Hirsi Ali.

Ms Ali is Muslim;  she is Somali born, and was circumcised as a child.

As an adult, she worked with Theo Van Gogh to make the film "Submission" (she wrote the screen play).  The film was not "anti-Islam", it was anti-violence-against-women and decried those Muslims who supported that violence.

As a result, Van Gogh was murdered and a note containing a death threat against Ali was pinned to his chest.  Ali has received numerous death threats and some of them have come close to succeeding.

This is the Islam that uses violence as a means to the end.

~~~

Christian girls on the way home from school:  ahhh...the photos were here...a young girl's body...her head laying beside her...the World Trade Center...Danial Pearl, his head laying on his belly....

This is the religion that some egalitarians compare complementarians to...and nobody objects.

I will say again...if a picture says a thousand words...that says volumes.

•

When people hear "Reformed", what pops into their head is "TULIP"...well, a lot of times what pops in it "predestination" and that can end the conversation right there.

And it is true that when I first started looking at Reformed theology, TULIP is the first thing that I found and the first thing I looked at.  Who can argue with the "total depravity of man"?

But just beyond "TULIP" are the Solas.  The Solas are the "love of my Reformed life".  They have become much more central to my "state of being" than TULIP ever was.

Soli Deo Gloria...for the Glory of God alone.  The God that I belong to is so great, so vast, so everything that is...is there anything or anybody else that deserves glory?  Is there anything that tries to get into the limelight of glory?  It is this understanding of the Glory and centrality of God that should drive all other theology.

When looking at a theology, ask:  does it glorify God, or does it glorify man, or does it glorify creation?

Solus Christus...Christ alone.   It is only through Christ - and Christ on the cross - that we can be saved.

Here's something I wrote when my tatoo a while ago...

My tattoo is a week old today! I recently took stock of where I am, what I've done and how I've changed and/or grown. And something that might seem out of character underscores the change. This tattoo is a celtic-style cross, only instead of knot work on the crossbar, there are Greek letters, Christos - Christ on the cross. For me, in my Reformation from Arminianism, Christ alone on the cross means that there is no room there for my works, my filthy rags (righteousness). It's all Christ on there. My son designed it (so it's not exactly professional, but I'll probably end up going back to have it shaded later) and the letters are in Greek because Manda and I are taking a Greek class together. So both my kids are "in" the design.

Sola Fide/Sola Gratia...by grace alone, through faith alone.   The gift of grace, by the gift of faith.  The knowledge that there is nothing that I can do that will make me worth being "saved".  There is no despair at not being able to measure up; no pride in the thought that I can do it myself.

That freedom to believe...

Sola Scriptura...The authority of Scripture as the only infallible guide of faith and conduct.   Not SOLO, but Sola...Scripture is the "rule" (measuring stick) by which all other authoriy is examined and either submitted to or rejected.

To me, the "Solas" are the beautiful expression of our attitudes toward God.

TULIP is sotierological.  How God saves.

The Solas are about how God IS.

If we look at our teaching and ask, how does this reflect Christ?  Does it reflect how we (either as the church or as individuals) relate to the Prince of Peace?

Does it point to the glory of Christ?  The glory of God?  Does it pull the rug of self-righteousness out from under us, leaving us with only Christ on the cross for our salvation?

Important questions...

• 4 Comments

•
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.”

• 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.