Something I read today....

[mizpeh]

Two analogies about Calvinism and unconditional election:

...With that in mind I recently stated that I don’t see how “God loves Jones” is consistent with “God willing that Jones be subjected eternally to the most unimaginable suffering when God could easily spare Jones that suffering.” Paul Manata demurred:

[1] I don’t see the incompatibility. It seems you do. So perhaps you could help me by showing the incompatibility such that both propositions cannot have true truth values. Just for starters, I can see a governor loving his son, a convicted murderer, and yet refusing to pardon his son, or grant him a stay of execution, saving him from the death penalty. Obviously there’s disanalogies here, but I think it at least supports the compatibility of S loving S* while also punishing S* for S*’s crimes, even though S could pardon or grant a stay of execution for S*.
Certainly I agree with this case. All things being equal a father may wish shalom for his son even though he also wills that his son face the death penalty. For one thing, he might believe that this is the best way to bring his wayward son to repentance. Or he may believe that it is not possible to pardon his son consistently such that to do so would impugn the integrity of the justice system that he has been called to uphold.

But I also find the case critically disanalogous with what we’re concerned with. Let’s make the case more relevant to the Jones proposition. To recap: ““God willing that Jones be subjected eternally to the most unimaginable suffering when God could easily spare Jones that suffering.” So here is a refashioned and more apposite analogy:

[2] When his son was conceived the governor had a microchip implanted in the son’s brain in utero when he was an itty bitty fetus. And the governor used that microchip to implant beliefs and desires in the son’s mind that would lead him to pursue certain courses of behavior which would place him on the wrong side of the law and eventually result in him committing crimes for which he would be placed on death row. Thus the father was the primary cause of the son’s actions (he placed the desire to murder in the son) even as the son was the secondary cause (he was the one who drove the knife into his victim). Why did the father do this? So that he could provide a visible demonstration of his concern for justice as the governor by refusing to commune the sentence of his own son.
Does the father love his son? In other words, does the father wish his son achieve shalom if that were possible? Clearly not.

http://randalrauser.com/2011/02/dont...s-the-rascals/

[mizpeh]

Another blog posted by Randall Rauser entitled, Oh heaven, why art thou so boring?


http://randalrauser.com/2011/02/oh-h...hou-so-boring/

[mizpeh]

Anyway, let me just say this: I don’t think not believing in hell is going to cause anyone to go there in and of itself. Likewise, not believing in hell isn’t going to keep anyone out. I personally believe in hell, like a literal hell, where people suffer for eternity (whether the fire is literal I couldn’t say, but the pain is very real, or so I’d imagine). It’s that belief that got me to go to a church and confess Jesus as Lord in the first place. I’ve told the story before but it bears repeating: I was getting high with my boss when I looked at him and said, “You know, if we died right now we’d go to hell.” His response, “Shut up man, I don’t wanna hear that!” A few days later I was in church confessing Jesus as Lord and I haven’t looked back since.

But this belief in hell is also the thing that makes me talk about Jesus to anyone in the first place. If I thought that everyone was fated to heaven or paradise on the new earth or whatever then I wouldn’t bother. I know it’s all the rage to talk about the superiority of love over fear, but fear is a great motivator sometimes. And I don’t mean that I try to scare people to Jesus—far from it—I mean that it’s the fear of people dying and going to hell that motivates me to say something at all. I think Pascal’s Wager is a good one. If I’m wrong then I got nothing to lose. I’d rather err on this side than the other.

http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2011/03/...s-a-hot-topic/

[mizpeh]

I always wondered who Paul was talking about in Romans 1. Here's one version:

The other day I mentioned the importance of hearing the Adam-Christ juxtaposition through the Epistle to the Romans and not just in 5.12-21 where it is made most explicit (see comments on 8.2 here). If we keep Adam-Christ in view as we read the epistle we are more likely to notice nuance that will impact our understanding of the message. The first important passage where the reader should be aware of Adam’s “presence” is 1.18-25. This is what Morna Hooker says (From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul, 77-78):

“…the sequence of events outlined in Rom. 1 reminds us of the story of Adam as it is told in Gen. 1-3. Of Adam it is supremely true that God manifest to him that which can be known of him (v. 19); that from the creation onwards, God’s attributes were clearly discernible to him in the things which had been made, and that he was thus without excuse (v. 20). Adam, above and before all men, knew and allowed his heart to be darkened (v. 20). Adam’s fall was the result of his desire to be as God, to attain knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3.5), so that, claiming to be wise, he in fact became a fool (v. 21). Thus he not only failed to give glory to God but, according to rabbinic tradition, himself lost the glory of God which was reflected on his face (v. 23). In believing the serpent’s lie that his action would not lead to death (Gen. 3.4) he turned his back on the truth of God, and he obeyed, and thus gave his allegiance to a creature, the serpent, rather than to the creator (v. 25).”

To read the rest of the blog, go here.... http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2011...omans-1-18-25/

[mizpeh]

Another theologian speaks on Romans 1:

Yesterday I shared Morna Hooker’s analysis of Rom. 1.18-25 where she sees the character of Adam in the background (see here). Today I will relay the comments of J.D.G. Dunn (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 91-92):

“Lurking behind this we should probably see the figure of Adam, the archetypal human who deliberately refused to give God his due, by refusing to obey God’s one command (Gen. 2.17). But in Rom. 1.22 the echo becomes stronger. The claim to be wise, which in direct contrast plunged into folly, recalls the current understanding of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To covet wisdom, independent of God, was itself the temptation to become like God (Gen. 3.5-6), which resulted in Adam’s debarment from life. It is the same reaching beyond oneself, resulting only in damage to oneself, as with the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28), the ‘vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself, and falls on the other.’ The implication is that humankind is dependent for wisdom from on high, and when it claims such wisdom in itself or in its own resources, that is simply a receipt for folly, darkened counsel, and disaster. The temptation is to become like God. The outcome is that humans are less able to function effectively even as humans. Claiming to have “come of age” and no longer need God, they become not godlike and independent, but futile and confused. The tragedy is that humankind apart from God can no longer properly know itself or recognize its true nature. It thinks it is godlike and cannot grasp that is is only God-breathed earth.”
Along with Hooker’s insights so Dunn’s statements provide strong reasons for reading 1.18-25 (-32!) with Adam in view. Paul unpacks this in 5.12-21, especially v. 12 where he writes, “…sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” This is exactly what he is saying in 1.18-32. Adam is the character who provides the model, but as the long lists of various sins indicates, everyone plays their part.

http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2011...8-25/#comments

[mizpeh]

Pietism:

First a brief survey of others’ opinions about Pietism’s common characteristics.

Stoeffler lays out four characteristics that together made up the distinctive core or center of Pietism which he regards as a centered rather than a bounded set. The margins of Pietism may express these idiocyncractically and may place other features beside them, but Stoeffler rightly argues the movement and type must be understood from its center and not from its margins.[19] The first common, core characteristic of Pietism is the belief that “The essence of Christianity is to be found in the personally meaningful relationship of the individual to God.”[20] This is, of course, a summary of statements about true Christianity sprinkled throughout the sermons and writings of Spener, Francke, Zinzendorf and all their followers. Almost with one voice they condemned mere formal religion of “head knowledge” and argued that the purpose of all preaching should be to lead listeners into “intimate personal connection” with God through the Savior Jesus Christ. Zinzendorf may have put this somewhat more emphatically and even sentimentally than others, but all Pietists would agree with him that “The believer can converse and walk with the Savior as with an invisible friend.”[21]

http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/16/reclaiming-pietism/

[mizpeh]

Pietism 2:

The second characteristic is “religious idealism” by which Stoeffler means spiritual anti-complacency or anti-spiritual complacency.[22] Pietism always makes a distinction between merely “nominal” Christianity and “true” Christianity and says the latter involves inward transformation that effects real change in a person’s life. This Pietist emphasis was well expressed by Francke who declared that “True faith is a divine work in us, which transforms us and bestows upon us the new birth from God, which kills the old Adam, and fashions us into a man who is entirely different in heart, soul, mind, and in all his powers.”[23]

http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/16/reclaiming-pietism/

I don't like the term "true faith". Faith is faith. There can be little faith or great faith and all faith is true faith. So why use a term like "true faith" unless you are implying that there is a "false faith" which by definition cannot be faith!

[mizpeh]

Perhaps no amount of quoting early Pietists will satisfy those who suspect Pietism harbors some hidden emphasis on merit in salvation; Calvinists always think that about Arminians even as Arminians vehemently deny it and affirm that salvation is initiated by God and that God does all the “work” of saving. However, most of the early and later Pietist theologians have strongly affirmed justification even as they have attempted to recover a Protestant emphasis on devout and holy living. Once again I point to Bloesch as my example. He adamantly affirms that salvation is all of God’s grace and that justification and sanctification are distinct moments in the drama of salvation. However, he sides with the Pietists and says this is something we can learn from them: “While acknowledging the logical priority of justification, they remind us of its inseparable connection with sanctification. They concur in the judgment of the Reformers that God loves us as we are; but they go on to affirm that God wants us as He is.”

http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/16/reclaiming-pietism/

[mizpeh]

More from that article by Roger Olson on Pietism:

Closely tied to that first proposed contribution of Pietism is a second. A recovered and restored Pietism, stripped of extremes and filled with rich content as intended by its founders, can appeal to individuals’ desire for spiritual experience. Too often pastors and congregational leaders are so frightened of fanaticism and religious weirdness that they back away entirely from the whole idea of experiencing God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. But this is to ignore the natural craving to feel something and be changed that lies deep within the human breast. We are not made to live by doctrines and ceremonies alone; while we are shoving religious experience (except perhaps a quiet Yoga meditation class in the basement) out the door, people are seeking spiritual experience wherever they can find it. Pietism insists that authentic Christianity will always include an appeal to affections and not only intellect or will. Pietist scholar Hansgünter Ludewig’s description of Pietist Gerhard Tersteegen (1697-1769) well expresses the longing of most, if not every, human heart: “His quest was less for a gracious God than for the presence of God. He desired to know by living experience that God is with him.”[63] Many, if not most, people today are, like Tersteegen, less concerned about issues of guilt and justification than about issues of God’s personal presence with and in them. Pietism points the way toward a non-fanatical, experiential Christianity that brings transformation and assurance through a personal relationship with God that is felt and not only promised.

http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/16/reclaiming-pietism/

[mizpeh]

Loving One Another From The Battlefield of the Mind Devotional by Joyce Meyer

1 John 2:9-11

Hate is an extremely strong and harsh word. Any discussion among believers about hating other Christians would lead most of them to say, "I don't believe I have ever hated anyone." If we think about these words of John, however, perhaps he didn't mean hate as we thing of it--feeling great hostility or animosity toward someone. Perhaps our form of hatred today is more like indifference. We don't really dislike people, but we don't care enough to help them when they have troubles and problems.

"Most of the loving I see today in the church is based on convenience," someone told me recently. He went on to say that we will reach out to others as long is it's convenient or doesn't demand too much time or effort.

This opens a wide door of opportunity for Satan to separate us from those who most need our love. Jesus commanded us to love each other. In John 13:34-35, He said that people would recognize us as his disciples by our expressions of love toward one another. Perhaps one reason they don't say that about many of today's Christians is because too often we're unwilling to go out of our way to meet the needs of others.

Love is an action verb. If you love others, you do things for them. To hate (in the biblical sense) is to do nothing or to turn away. To make it worse, you judge and criticize others and think, If thy really loved God, they wouldn't be in such a predicament.

You need to see that if you practice God's "love walk," you not only grow yourself, but you enable others to grow. The devil can't do you much harm if you truly walk in loving relationship with others.

In my book Battlefield of the Mind, I shared the story of how I was extremely sick during my fourth pregnancy. When I prayed for healing, God reminded me that I had criticized another woman in our church who was always tired and sick during her pregnancy. Now, here I was in the same circumstances. I realized how wrong I had been and repented. But it took more than repenting--it also became a time of learning for me. God forced me to realize how often I had judged or criticized others because they didn't measure up to the standards I thought they ought to live by.

All of us make mistakes. All of us have weaknesses. God didn't call us to point out those weaknesses to the person (or worse, to someone else), but he did call us to care-to show Christ's love in any way we can. The Bible tells us to be tenderhearted, understanding,and forgiving. That is how we can win over satanic attacks. Paul says it this way: And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God [do not offend or vex or sadden Him], by Whom you were sealed (marked, branded as God's own, secured) for the day of redemption (of final deliverance through Christ from evil and the consequences of sin).
31Let all bitterness and indignation and wrath (passion, rage, bad temper) and resentment (anger, animosity) and quarreling (brawling, clamor, contention) and slander (evil-speaking, abusive or blasphemous language) be banished from you, with all malice (spite, ill will, or baseness of any kind).
32And become useful and helpful and kind to one another, tenderhearted (compassionate, understanding, loving-hearted), forgiving one another [readily and freely], as God in Christ forgave you.

God used these verses to help me see that being Jesus' disciple means being kind to others, tenderhearted, and forgiving. I also realized it meant overlooking their weaknesses and shortcomings. If we truly love others as Christ loves us, it isn't difficult at all.