tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38634820664447976292024-02-18T22:16:54.218-05:00Soli Deo Gloria"To God alone the glory"Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-38450590698248835182009-10-23T00:59:00.002-04:002009-10-23T01:20:54.517-04:00Where do you go for faith when yours is lacking?I once asked a good friend of mine the following: "Where do you find faith if you do not have it?" I asked this question as a Christian that was facing a valley so low that my very core was being shaken. His response was as follows: "In the Bible!" <br /><br />I know that this is the right answer, and I understand that if you read the Word of God He will increase your faith. I believe, though, that there is a very thin line between disobedience and true opression. For months I have been in a very "interesting" place with the Lord. My convictions about the doctrines I embrace have been shaken a couple of times and I am not sure exactly where to stand anymore. On one hand I have (or at least had) this PASSIONATE love for Christ that led me to believe in Him and to trust Him almost blindly. I have experienced such a REAL God that even if He does not make sense, I can still believe. <br /><br />Through the years this blind faith has been challenged by those that believe in God in a mental way: those that claim they understand the Scriptures and in fear of being caught all the way towards the Pentecostal side of things, they rather believe in God almost from afar. They live lives that make sense to the world because anything "supernatural" could not possibly be. If the Lord chooses to perform a radical miracle, I would dare to say that many of these people would attribute it to an exception that God chose to make and not as a norm based on how GREAT the Lord is. <br /><br />With this said, I once again ask: "Where do you go to find the faith you have lost?" I stand in such a sad state of mind and state of "spirit". I want to love the Lord with all my heart and all my might! I want to be bold about the faith He has given me; the child-like faith that leads me to obey even the wildest things to tell others about Him! I so desire to go back to my first love, yet I feel as though am trapped in the prison of my own mind, where every pull of the Spirit is second guessed because: "Is this something that matches an incident in Scripture?", "Can God really "speak" to me and tell me to do small things?" "Should I really tell that person that the Lord put in my heart that He loves them?"<br /><br />How do I know what is right?!?! In my Bible I see a God that is ALIVE and that moves and breathes and has His being through those that believed that He could do just that! In my Bible I see a God that would command to His children the wildest things and when they obeyed they encountered the wildest results! In my Bible I see God despising those that felt understood everything about Him and embracing those that admitted their lack of knowledge!<br /><br />With this I am not saying that knowledge is not important, for the Lord commands that we would seek wisdom, but our knowledge should lead us to further our RELATIONSHIP with Him. In the Bible there is a verse where Jesus tells the pharisees: "You search the Scriptures looking for wisdom, yet you don't come to me for life". (I know that this is a bad paraphrase of this verse.) I wonder how much of a pharisee I have become in trying to conform to the way others think I should believe? I wonder how far away my fears will take me from God? I wonder, where can I go to regain my faith?<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />NanaNana Campanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12247726187339328638noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-66814738805279654582009-05-23T00:30:00.002-04:002009-05-23T00:33:31.729-04:00A Personal Review on Predestination and Ephesians Ch. 1It seems like all I do these days is discuss Calvinistic philosophy. I don’t wish to spend my life doing that. I want to get to know the Word of God in truth and purity. Not in debate. But an advantage of this is that it draws me closer to God by motivating me to study His Word. Furthermore, I learn from it, and I believe the Holy Spirit uses it to shape my Biblical philosophy. What follows is my understanding of Ephesians 1 and what it means when it says that we are predestined. This is my reasonable interpretation of God’s Word. I’m not a Bible expert. Lord, help me.<br /><br />Ephesians 1:4-6<br />“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: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”<br /><br />This passage is often used in relation with other passages to support the concept of ‘unconditional election.’ As I understand this concept it means that God determines before a person is born whether or not that person will have eternal life. This is in contrast to the more Armenian view that a person is not pre-elected, but rather has a lifetime to choose to receive eternal life. In both cases eternal life is not earned by the person’s merit. It is earned by Christ our Lord through His life and sufferings.<br /><br />In reference to the verse above the key as I presume is to understand what is meant by the word “us.” Here are the three ways that I believe that the word “us” can be interpreted. Afterwards will follow a type of exegesis which attempts to determine what is the best interpretation of the word “us” in context with this passage. <br />“Us,” can be understood as follows, though I do not believe that all of these interpretations are appropriate:<br /><br />1) Us – Paul and the specific group of believers that he was writing to living at the time that he wrote Ephesians.<br />2) Us – Believers in general living during any period, though it includes Paul and those whom he was specifically directing this letter to <br />3) Us - People who have been pre-elected to become believers.<br /><br />• Us cannot refer to unbelievers since Paul’s greeting directs the letter to the “saints living at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus” v. 1<br /><br />I believe that the first interpretation of the word “us” can be quickly eliminated based on two things. A) The letter is directed to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Though historically Paul was writing to the Ephesians, he addresses himself to all the faithful in Christ Jesus. There is no time limit in his address. All who are the faithful in Christ Jesus would benefit from his message. B) This letter being part of the inspired, canonized Word of God is meant for all Christians across the centuries, as is the rest of the Bible. Hence, the word “us” cannot mean just Paul and the specific people of the church he was writing to.<br /><br />The last interpretation that “us” refers to only believers who have been pre-elected is the least obvious interpretation. In other words, a general reading of this letter would not immediately cause one to think this. Particularly because of verse 19, in which Paul himself defines who he means by the Word “us.” --- <br /><br />Ephesians 1:19 “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,” – KJV<br /><br />“And [so that you can know and understand] what is the immeasurable and unlimited and surpassing greatness of His power in and for us who believe, as demonstrated in the working of His mighty strength,” – Amplified<br /><br />“I pray that you will begin to understand the incredible greatness of his power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power” – NLT<br /><br />“and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength” - NIV<br /><br />So who are the “us?” Those who believe. If you say that it’s those who have been pre-elected to believe then you are doing an eisegesis. You are imposing on the word a presumptive doctrine rather than letting the natural reading of the word define itself. Why is this so important?<br /><br />Let’s go back to verses 4-6 and look at it under the understanding that the most natural interpretation is that “us” refers to those who believe. What then are these verses stating?<br /><br />• That those who believe will be “holy and without blame with him in love.” V.4<br /> o Keep in mind that you have to read the whole verse to get the complete idea. You can’t stop at “God has chosen [those who believe]..before the foundation of the world.” You have to complete the thought. He didn’t choose them for salvation, rather He chose them to be “holy and without blame.” In other words, it doesn’t say that He predestined who will become His children, but rather that He predestined those that become His children to be holy.<br />• He has predestined those who believe to be adopted as children by Jesus Christ to Himself. V.5<br /> o Believers are adopted, but there is a future celebration of this adoption. As Paul states in Romans 8:23 “and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” So yes, those who believe are predestined to be adopted. Again the thought has to be completed. You can’t stop at “having predestinated us.” The thought has to be completed. What did He predestine believers to? Adoption. In other words, it doesn’t say that He predestined who will be adopted or who will believe, but rather that those that believe are promised the adoption…those that become believers are predestined to be adopted, whoever they may be. Furthermore, it is in His “good pleasure” that those who believe are adopted as children by Jesus Christ to Himself.<br />• He has made us who believe accepted, and it brings Him praise and glory. V. 6<br /><br />Recap: A careful reading of Ephesians shows that the most ‘natural,’ least eisegetical, interpretation of Ephesians, taking entire verses in context reveals that the predestination is not of believers. God doesn’t predestine believers. God predestines believers to…something. God predestines believers to be holy. God predestines believers to be adopted. All who choose Christ of their own volition can be guaranteed that they will be holy and blameless before Him, and adopted because He has predestined all who believe to be so. <br /><br />My Greek word research, and verse comparison was possible thanks to www.blueletterbible.orgUnknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-6758039852934991492009-04-07T12:57:00.003-04:002009-04-07T13:12:52.770-04:00Easter PostAs Easter approaches, some readers of this blog might have questions regarding the resurrection event that Christians celebrate in a special way on Easter Sunday -- the resurrection of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />To anyone reading, please be encouraged to use this thread to discuss whatever is on your mind regarding the resurrection of Jesus.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-75862116131913327122009-03-31T23:51:00.002-04:002009-03-31T23:54:29.436-04:00Proverbs 30:7-9I came across the following video from Francis Chan and it has left me thinking. How about you? What do you think?<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E2oi6y292kE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E2oi6y292kE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-80958593056745375422009-03-31T12:07:00.002-04:002009-03-31T15:24:26.482-04:00Pujols Family Foundation<div style="text-align: left;">I read an interesting article this morning in the USAtoday titled <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cardinals/2009-03-30-cover-pujols_N.htm">"<span class="inside-head">Focus of Cardinals first baseman Pujols: Higher power"<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></a> , which I think follows up rather nicely to Remy's previous post. In a day and age when sport stars and red carpet celebrities make the news for all the wrong reasons; we have Albert Pujols, first baseman for the Cardinals, doing something that the bible calls all believers in Christ to do, namely care for the less fortunate. He can obviously do other things with the millions he earns and yet he has turned down major celebrity events to do mission trips to his native Dominican Republic. I find this very encouraging and I pray that this recognition does not make us idolize him or make him more full of pride. May we use this as an example of leadership and service. We may not have the resources to accomplish what he is doing, but we do possess the One who can lead and direct his children, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." Ephesians 2:10<br /><br />May you be blessed and encouraged this day in Christ Jesus of Nazareth!,<br />Freddy<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cardinals/2009-03-30-cover-pujols_N.htm"><span class="inside-head"></span></a></div>Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-77588370987412416452009-03-21T14:55:00.003-04:002009-03-21T14:57:31.908-04:00Jorge MunozIt's hard for me to read stories like these and think that man is totally depraved, when not even the best redeemed and justified Christians I know have gone this far. I am ashamed. <br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/03/19/cnnheroes.jorge.munoz/index.html<br /><br />Remy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-69664806128513323562009-03-15T12:02:00.002-04:002009-03-15T12:03:44.963-04:00Americans are becoming "less religious"Here is an article that I read on the Miami Herald by Leonard Pitts Jr. Tell me what you guys think:<br /> <strong style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="dropcap-large"><br />W</span></strong>e are losing our religion.<div class="" id="storyBodyContent"><p>That, with apologies to R.E.M., is the startling conclusion of a new study, the American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by researchers at Trinity College of Hartford, Conn. The poll of over 54,000 American adults found a sharp erosion in the number of people claiming religious affiliation.</p><p>A few highlights: The number of people who call themselves Christian is 76 percent, down 10 percentage points since 1990. </p> <p> Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious ceremony.</p><p>Better than one in four Americans do not expect a religious funeral.</p><p>It is important to reiterate that we are talking about overall percentages. In raw numbers, there are actually about 22 million more Christians now than in 1990. Still, the trend is clear, particularly as illustrated in one telling statistic: In 1990, 8.2 percent (about 14 million) of us said ''none'' when asked to specify their religion. Last year, 15 percent (34 million) did.</p><p>Some have suggested our loss of faith is due to increased diversity, mobility and immigration. I'm sure there's something to that, but I tend to think the most important cause is simpler: Religion has become an ugly thing.</p><p>People of faith usually respond to that ugliness -- by which I mean a seemingly endless cycle of scandal, controversy, hypocrisy, violence and TV preachers saying idiot things -- in one of two ways. Either they defend it (making them part of the problem), or they regard it as a series of isolated, albeit unfortunate, episodes. But irreligious people do neither.</p><p>And people of faith should ask themselves: What is the cumulative effect upon outside observers of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker living like lords on the largess of the poor, multiplied by Jimmy Swaggart's pornography addiction, plus Eric Rudolph bombing Olympians and gays in the name of God, plus Muslims hijacking airplanes in the name of God, multiplied by the church that kicked out some members because they voted Democrat, divided by people caterwauling on courthouse steps as a rock bearing the Ten Commandments was removed, multiplied by the square root of Catholic priests preying on little boys while the church looked on and did nothing, multiplied by Muslims rioting over cartoons, plus the ongoing demonization of gay men and lesbians, divided by all those ''traditional values'' coalitions and ''family values'' councils that try to bully public schools into becoming worship houses, with morning prayers and science lessons from the book of Genesis? Then subtract selflessness, service, sacrifice, holiness and hope.</p><p>Do the math, and I bet you'll draw the same conclusion the researchers did.</p><p>Who can be surprised if the sheer absurdity, fundamentalist cruelty and ungodly hypocrisy that have characterized so much ''religion'' in the last 30 years have driven people away? If all I knew of God was what I had seen in the headlines, I would not be eager to make His acquaintance. I am thankful I know more.</p><p>Including that God and religion are not synonymous. God is, for the faithful at least, the sovereign creator of all creation. Religion is what men and women put in place, ostensibly to worship and serve Him. Too often, though, religion worships and serves that which has nothing to do with Him, worships money and serves politics, worships charisma and serves ego, worships intolerance and serves self.</p><p>The ARIS survey should serve as a wake-up call to organized religion. It continues in this manner at the risk of irrelevance. I am reminded of a line from the movie <em>Oh, God!,</em> with George Burns as the deity and John Denver as the grocery store manager reluctantly recruited to spread The Word.</p><p>''I don't even go to church,'' says the manager.</p><p>And God says, ``Neither do I.'' </p> </div>Bernie305http://www.blogger.com/profile/06071024237641739573noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-26451450550662687902009-03-11T20:17:00.002-04:002009-03-14T15:00:28.181-04:00Marriage and Human Sexuality<p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Marriage and Human Sexuality</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">by Bernalt Velasquez<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">In this day and age, the western world is very hedonistic.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Marriage is not taken seriously anymore.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>The gift of sex is being abused and overused.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>More than two weeks ago, I spoke to a very self-indulgent woman.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>As I told her that I was going to wait until I get married with my girlfriend to have sex, she looked at me as though I was weird.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>She began to tell me that marriage (or monogamy) is not the best way to be happy and claims that there are “studies” that confirm this.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>According to her, making a lifelong commitment to a spouse would be futile because you never know when you might meet someone better than your spouse or if you might stop loving your spouse.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>So the idea of marriage must be loosened to some kind of contract with a clause of opting out if you meet someone better or stop loving that person.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>She says that God created sex and because of this, it should be expressed freely without any restriction such as marriage. She sees no harm with people being promiscuous.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If sex becomes “tamed” in her view, then people will become unhappy.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If you want to have 8 girlfriends at the same time, so be it.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>She thinks that if it makes you happy, then do it.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>All in all, she says that society needs to take off the taboo that is attached to sex and let it be “naturally expressed.”<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If this is done, society will be happier.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:+0;"></span>As she expressed her beliefs on marriage and human sexuality, I began to think about what she told me.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>As a young, robust, hormone-raging man, I understand the sin of fornication like Einstein understands physics.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>There is an immense amount of pleasure that is obtained by indulging in adultery and fornication.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>For a young man or woman to ponder whether they should save themselves for marriage has become very difficult because free sex and promiscuity is ubiquitous.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>That’s like putting a bowl of delicious cookies fresh out of the oven on the table and telling a child to wait for 30 minutes until it can be eaten.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Do you think the child is going to wait that long if he or she thinks there’s no good reason to wait?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>As I finished reading a book called “The Science before Science: A Guide to 21<sup>st</sup> Century Thinking” by Anthony Rizzi, he mentioned that all humans strive for that which is ultimately good.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In other words, we all strive to have a life of “Christlikeness” whether we believe in Him or not.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>He also says this: “If it is real <i>good</i> we’ve chosen, it increases our being; while if it is not, it contracts being (increases disorder).” <span style="font-size:+0;"></span>Could that be possible?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Our society seems to believe that promiscuity is the ultimate good and this will increase our being.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Do people even acknowledge how to truly increase our being? Do they even know how to obtain that which is truly ultimately good?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>If we are to pursue ultimate goodness, then sex being done only during marriage, with one single mate, will be a means to this end.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Could this really be done?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I began to think about why marriage exists to begin with.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Why is this institution imposed on sexually active human beings?<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:+0;"></span>In my current understanding, God created us as sexual beings with the intent of pleasure and the purpose of procreation within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I’ve also heard that marriage is a sacred institution established by God for the primary purpose of bringing Him glory and raising a family.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>In this covenantal relationship, the husband faithfully loving his wife is supposed to exemplify Christ faithfully loving the church; it is supposed to show unity and sacrifice.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>When a married couple has children, they are to raise them up in a godly fashion.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>This is supposed to create a strong family.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I think that Ephesians 5:22-33 describes the nature of marriage. The most interesting verse is v. 25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><o:p></o:p></p><span style="font-size:+0;"></span>I’m interested to see what you guys think about my friend’s view of sexuality and marriage, about society’s view of this, and my understanding of marriage and sexuality.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Perhaps my understanding could be further supplemented by you guys since you are the ones that are married.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>I look forward to what you guys have for me.<span style="font-size:+0;"> </span>Thanks and God bless you all.Bernie305http://www.blogger.com/profile/06071024237641739573noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-21939266952986529482009-02-25T18:48:00.000-05:002009-02-25T18:49:35.099-05:00How Young, New Believers are a Detriment to the Church, by Remy DouHave you ever met a young, new believer, the kind that speaks with fire in his eyes? His mouth salivates at the sound of God’s work. His lips move like lightning setting the words he preaches ablaze. And it seems that those he speaks to (mostly the young) are either intimidated or inspired. Have you ever seen this person a few years later, broken, worldly, away from God?<br /><br />A few years ago I met a young man like this. He was passionate for Christ, and his passion carried desperation. He must have been seventeen or eighteen. Once, I saw him preaching in front of a crowd of over two-hundred teenagers. There were tears in his eyes as he admonished the wayward youth. We spoke about his plans to go to seminary. He didn’t go alone. There were others with him infected with a zeal for the Lord. It’s been almost two years since we spoke. Last I heard his new favorite past time includes drugs, women, and alcohol.<br /><br />Why is it that so many of us have heard this story before? It seems like the good news we heard of someone coming to Christ has become another reason why the Church loses credibility. <br /><br />When I was seventeen I came to know Christ in a supernatural way. I was so excited. A friend of mine encouraged me to pray that God would continue to feed the fire that was raging within me. In hindsight, I now understand why he asked me to do so. In fact, he even warned me: ‘many times people start out excited for God when they first experience Him, but then they lose it.’ My friend was used to the pattern. So, did I fulfill his dreadful prophecy? Not right away.<br /><br />I was frustrated that almost everywhere I went I kept running into blaze Christians. It was heartrending. I felt out of touch with the Church, like I was alone. I ended up finding a church whose young people made my fervor look like pudding night at the local hospice. I joined these young people as they went out into the streets and evangelized. I saw gangsters shaken by the Spirit of God. I saw older people bow their heads in public and confess Jesus Christ as Savior. And we would worship God and give Him praise.<br /><br />But the fire burned out. The leaders that I admired fell into sin. Some of them started to act worse than before they met Christ, including myself. How many times had I prayed that I would not end up like the ones I had seen or heard of fall? But I did, and the Church suffered for it.<br /><br />I saddened and disappointed many of my friends. Some doubted whether or not I had ever been a Christian. And because I had been a Christian long enough I still acted like one superficially. But that only made matters worse. I directly caused people to stumble. God knows the extent of the consequences of my behavior. And like Ravi says, the least of the pains that I caused were the ones I inflicted on myself. <br />The Church bears the burden of the sin of these young leaders when they fall. And if it wasn’t because of the truth of the revelation of Christ’s love on the cross I suspect hypocrisy, false conversions, and fallen Christians would have stamped out Christianity as we know it from the face of the earth.<br /><br />How do we react as a body of believers? Many of us chuck it up to our enemy’s credit. It is the enemy that leads them astray, is what we conclude. And I can agree that is partially true. Others say that these young individuals represent the stony soil in Jesus’ parable. That when they heard the Word “they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched and because they had no root they withered away.” (Matthew 13:5-6) And though these things partially explain what is going on, I also partially blame myself, the Church. <br /><br />We make two major errors when we encounter these young people: 1) We fail to embrace them 2) We make them leaders. I remember speaking to one of my mentors and he looked at me and told me that he remembered when he had been as excited as I was to preach the Word. He implied that I would eventually float back down. I writhed inside and promised to myself never to become as complacent as he appeared to me. Four years later, I was telling another friend that had recently come to Christ the same hurtful words that my mentor told me. I alienated this new, young believer because I failed to embrace him.<br /><br />Thanks be to God, that there were others in the Church that did embrace him and nurture him as the Holy Spirit matured him, as the sun came out to scorch him. They stood over him and provided a shade. Our faith may have matured, but we’ve forgotten what it is like to be passionate. Young believers are looking for someone to relate their new feelings to. Let’s stoke the fire that runs deep within us so that they do not go looking elsewhere for companionship, because the enemy will try to present it. Let us not despise their youth. (I Timothy 4:12)<br /><br />Yet, these same older believers that shun the passion place the youth in leadership position because it seems like no one else in the church or youth group is willing to take on the responsibility. But the Bible clearly warns not to place new believers in leadership positions (I Timothy 3:6). We fail to understand that God will provide or show us that He doesn’t need to. We take matters into our own hands and end up hurting others as well as that young man or woman that should have been instructed before becoming the instructor. <br /><br /> I close with this analogy. If you have ever tried to light coals for a barbecue you know that you first have to get a few coals glowing red, hot embers. This burning coal is usually covered with grey ashes and placed underneath all the other fresh coals to help light them and keep them burning even after the lighter fluid evaporates. Let us be those deep burning coals. Though there may be no flames on our surface let us support the fresh coals until they start burning deeply. And let us be stirred by the wind of the Holy Spirit so that our embers would glow brighter. <br />A few weeks ago I saw a fresh, young man, on fire for God, preaching the Word. Someone mentioned that he preached ‘as if he’d been doing it for thirty years.’ Let us come underneath him to ensure that he’s still preaching thirty years from now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-88252122880777780752009-02-15T23:44:00.003-05:002009-03-28T13:09:25.210-04:00A timely discussion on evolution, continued...Biological science is not as consequential as metaphysics. It is less substantial than some of the other sciences, including mathematics and Physics. Perhaps it carries more weight in the field of medicine than any other field, but it still falls short of fulfilling the true need of mankind, communion with God. <br /><br /> But this day and age requires that we understand these more basic sciences because of their metaphysical implications. When speaking to the average, young nonbeliever it is apparent that their metaphysical views have been shaped by their biology teacher. What biology class doesn’t answer the questions that haunt every person? Where do I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Who am I? When so many young people turn to science for religion we should prepare ourselves to give a reason for our faith that they can understand. Paul spoke to the gentiles in Greek, and to the Jews in Hebrew. Let us speak to our generation in their language, the language of post modern science.<br /><br />Concerning evolution, we should make the distinction between the measurable and observable process of natural selection/adaptation and the immeasurable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Both of these processes fall under the category of evolution. To think that organisms are not designed with a genetic flexibility to adapt to their changing environment is to deny what farmers have taken advantage of for thousands of years: if you breed good cattle with good cattle you artificially ‘select’ certain inherent, beneficial characteristics. But to think that after thousands, if not millions, of years of selecting certain breeds one can create a camel from a horse is a stretch of the imagination, and an immeasurable assumption. When we place things in perspective it should baffle us that the current evolutionary thought is that the human body has descended from the breeding of a prokaryote-like organism (bacteria). <br />Natural selection is part of the evolutionary theory and has been well documented. Organisms breed and certain genetic characteristics are either rearranged or lost. But molecules-to-man evolution assumes that genetic characteristics that did not previously exist are gained over time. This has not been observed, or documented. Currently, the belief that mutations lead to novel genes is the most popular process that evolutionists adhere to in order to explain the increase of information over time. Perhaps in the future I can expound on the plethora of flaws in this model. It would not be difficult, and it could be done by quoting what evolutionists already understand about the limitations of this model. <br /><br />So, let’s turn to the question, why does it matter? Can’t people simply have a relationship with God regardless of their view of evolution? The simple answer is yes. The more complicated answer is yes, but with difficulty because of the obvious metaphysical implications of the evolutionary theory:<br />Where do we come from? Random, unintelligent chemical processes that began billions of years ago.<br />Why am I here? Pure chance.<br />Where am I going? Nowhere. You live and you die, and if you are ‘fit’ enough you pass on your genes to the next generation.<br />Who am I? A mass of molecules, unaccountable to anyone.<br /><br />Because of these obvious contradictions between the biology of evolution and the theology of Christ, it has been offered that God intervened at various moments in the evolutionary process in order to cross the great boundaries between beast and man, or non-life to life. This is what is known as theistic evolution. Assuming God’s intervention in the process, the answers to the above questions change for the better. Problem solved! What’s more, not only does it appear that the problem is solved, but the world applauds you for being so open-minded.<br /><br />But all that is being done is sprinkling a little bit of Bible over our science textbooks. If we are to be studiers of God's Word, and of the glory of God revealed in His creation, we must be genuine in our pursuit for an answer. If the lower science of biology proposes a view that does not directly lead to the more powerful truths dictated by metaphysics, then we must assume that it is not theology that’s wrong, but biology. Though the sciences are not all equal in consequence, they should be in harmony with one another. <br /> If we sprinkle theology over a person whose existential philosophy is based on natural biological processes we are going to create confused believers that are weak in their faith. The kind of radical twist that must be imposed on evolution for it to adhere to the standards of theists is not a small one. Because of that doubt will tug on the heart of the theistic evolutionist. Most self-respecting, secular evolutionists would never publicly claim that they believe that God intervenes in any way. Why? Because of the dogma that is inherent to evolution that all can be explained through naturalistic processes. A believer that attempts to reconcile these views can be compared to someone trying to keep together the north poles of two magnets, eventually there’s going to be a slip. <br /> Let me put it this way: Picture yourself placing a head of lettuce, a tomato, some raw ground beef, some milk, and a couple of buns in a box. Now picture yourself closing that box. Picture yourself shaking that box a few times. Now, mentally open that box. What do you expect to find? Maybe the lettuce smashed the bread. There’s probably milk everywhere. Some of the meat is sticking to the sides of the box. Now, what if you shook that box a few more times? Would you expect less of a mess or more of a mess? At this point your tomato might have burst open. The bread is soggy with milk and it is falling apart. There are pieces of meat between some of the lettuce leaves. What if I shook this box for a few hours? What if I shook it for a month? A year? A hundred years? A million years? A billion years? Would you ever expect anything more than mushy, rotten, incredibly decayed lumps? Or would you expect that sometime during the shaking the milk curdled into cheese and shaped itself into a perfect square by banging randomly against the sides of the box? Would you expect instead of smashed pieces of tomato flesh to see perfect, razor cut slices? Or the meat, like the cheese, formed itself into a shape by banging against the box, except this time it was a perfect circle, and what’s more the friction from being shaken up caused the patty to cook perfectly without cooking anything else. And so on, and on until you open the box a billion years later and you find a perfect looking cheeseburger? <br /> Evolution teaches that you would a get a cheeseburger. That’s the problem. Now, you can say that God intervenes, but he would have to intervene continually. The moment that He stops the contents of the box will return to their chaotic decay. What you have left is no longer evolution. But what if there is a theory out there that better explains what we see, and aligns itself with what we know of metaphysics and the theology of Christianity? Perhaps the theory, too, has flaws, but like all models in science, we take the best one until someone finds a better one and then we move on. Not only does the creation model (whether young or old earth) adequately explain what we see in nature, but it transitions smoothly into the more important truths that our Christian theology confesses. This leads to intelligent believers that can give a reason for their faith, and a defense against the darts of doubt that they encounter daily. Their view of creation does not have to be dogmatically defended, but they can be at rest with the security that it is in line with natural science, as well as Biblical truths. <br /><br />Let's make it clear; the Bible is NOT a scientific textbook, as some fundamental creationists might take it to be. I do not believe that it is in any way. I don’t go to the Bible to learn science or engineering. It is not an encyclopedia. But the Bible does help me interpret and shed light on certain things I do know. And that doesn’t have to make a person fundamentalist. The idea that a person is a fundamentalist simply because he or she accepts a view of creation that is more in line with Genesis 1 is fundamental in itself. Can’t it be possible to genuinely, scientifically disagree with the modern theory of evolution and not be labeled as a fundamentalist? What’s wrong with understanding that though Genesis is not a scientific textbook there are current scientific observations that support a more literal model of creation and biogenesis? Also, is there anything wrong with observing our world to see whether or not there is evidence that the creation model might be a little bit more literal than we once thought? And if evidence does support it should we not applaud the research with a sincere and critical eye, rather than condemn the findings as the ranting of fundamentalists? I can’t speak for all creationists. Many of them are fundamentalists. I can speak for myself, and I know that God has taken me on several spiritual roller coaster rides to rid me of my fundamental attitudes that are a detriment to the church, and I do not wish to continue to espouse those attitudes, though I fall short of that often.<br /><br />Certainly, the creation account was written by men that were limited and fallible. They were scientifically incompetent by our standards. The Hebrew culture didn’t even view the world the way we view it now. Therefore, there are few scientific facts in their writings. Neither was scientific truth the purpose of their writings. But we can assume that what they wrote exceeded their limitations because of God’s inspiration and explicit intervention. We believe the Bible to be infallible. God overcame man’s limit. Man is fallible. Prophets announced future events according to revelation from God. Man is not all-knowing. Even the account of creation must have been handed down to Adam by God. We must trust that there are truths that exceed man’s limitations. The Bible itself is the Story of God <br />Overcoming Man’s Limitations. That still doesn’t mean that I can go to the Bible and ignore the historical and grammatical context. I cannot assume that everything is literal. But I can assume that there are truths revealed in scripture that didn’t need to be fully comprehended by those that wrote them down. The Bible is revelation. <br /> The purpose of Genesis is an anthropological one, not a scientific one. And though there are some amazing figurative expressions in the book of Genesis (i.e. the parallels between the first three days and second three days of creation), there are also some less important physical propositions that are true about our universe. For example, Biblical allegories are not without the natural laws laid down by God. Jesus’ parables never involved men randomly floating in the air, or fish growing on trees. The laws of Physics were always adhered to. And when crazy-sounding things happened like men growing limbs in seconds, or a fig tree withering away at a word, an intervention by the power of God is directly or indirectly implied. Similarly, the creation account adheres to the laws of nature unless there is an implication that God was involved in influencing them. Because of that we can compare our science to what is true of Genesis.<br /> Yet, even if these models are well expounded and presented no one can intellectually force scientists to acknowledge God. It is part of God’s plan that a measure of faith is involved. The Bible says that God cannot be pleased without faith (Hebrews 11:6). In fact, I would argue that rarely, if ever, does a person come into relationship with God because of an intellectual assessment. The intellect, as well as the rest of the person is involved. I testify that truth through my own experiences. <br /><br />I always find it interesting when I hear theologians speak on the subject of origins. Oddly enough, most of my Christian friends that hold at least a bachelor's degree from a secular university in some field of science are not the ones that support molecules-to-man evolution. It is from those not scientifically trained that I hear the most support for evolution. Certainly, this is not indicative of the world population, but it never ceases to amaze me. I'm glad that a discussion on this subject has been submitted to this blog. I'm grateful for Anonymous' contributions. Science has been heralded by Christians over the centuries, as Bill so adequately expounded. Ultimately, salvation does not lie in which view of origins you hold, but in Christ. We will all have to answer His question: “but who do you say that I am?”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-20773222680954250052009-02-08T22:30:00.002-05:002009-03-28T13:12:38.100-04:00Is God real or a figment of our imagination? By Bernalt VelasquezThe other day an atheist told me that the reason why religion came into existence is because humans have a fear of death and suffering, and a longing for purpose and meaning, thus we use our imagination to create God (or religion) so that it may ease our fear of death and suffering and give our lives some purpose and meaning. Here is a quote from an article in the<em> New Scientist </em>that captures this atheistic thought: <div> <blockquote> <p>"It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods. Religious ideas are common to all cultures: like language and music, they seem to be part of what it is to be human. Until recently, science has largely shied away from asking why…The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation."</p></blockquote></div> <div>This is a common thing that atheists and agnostics tell me. They also say that religion is for the weak - people who cannot bear the "truth" that God doesn't exist. Atheists love to use this to argue against the existence of God, but I believe that you can easily turn it around. I think that a healthy fear of death and pain, and a longing for meaning and purpose is something that God gave to us in order to seek Him; it doesn't have to be a weakness or some negative characteristic. It is a "natural spiritual hunger." Just like we have our physical hunger for food, we have a spiritual hunger to make sense of life by seeking The Transcendent. Would someone call me a weak and deluded if I wanted to eat food after not eating for a week?!! Just because we seek to know what will happen after we die and what life is all about, it doesn't mean that we are weak; we are just spiritually hungry. Every man and woman is endowed with this characteristic. It was placed there by God. It is not a weakness; it is perfectly normal. By denying the existence of God is analogous to starving yourself. What do you people think about this? I am eager to read your comments on this matter. </div> <div> </div> <div>Thanks and God bless!</div>Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-19773311385411242342009-01-26T12:26:00.001-05:002009-01-26T12:49:25.429-05:00Science and Metaphysical Presuppositions - AnonymousThe comment that was made the other day was that Christians do not use science to prove their beliefs whereas skeptics (atheists or agnostics) at least try to use science to provide evidence for their belief in origins, particularly evolution. In my attempt to answer this claim, I will address what modern science is, how it developed, the two divisions within modern science, the assumptions of evolutionary and creation science, and demonstrate the design in nature that can point to a creator (or a transcendent designer). Hopefully you will see that creation science is reasonable and plausible. After all, science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God or any other metaphysical being or precepts, but it can point to the direction of a creator (transcendent designer). <br /><br />What is Science? How did Modern Science develop?<br /><br /> Science, which comes from the Latin word “scientia,” means to have knowledge. Modern science as we know it was developed in Europe by men who believed that God created an orderly universe and for that reason it was possible to attain knowledge of the natural world. If the universe was a product of random chance (no special creation as in the case of an atheistic universe), then there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Imagine if these men didn’t believe that God created an orderly universe; the basis for modern science would have never been established and there would probably be no modern science. Some of the most basic branches of modern science were founded and further developed by Christian men. Here are some examples:<br /><br />Physics<br />Isaac Newton (father of physics and calculus), Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell.<br /><br />Chemistry <br />Robert Boyle (Introduced the concept of Atoms) and John Dalton<br /><br />Biology<br />John Ray, Carolus Linneaus (father of taxonomy), Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), and Louis Pasteur (helped establish Microbiology)<br /><br />Geology <br />Nicolas Steno (founder of modern geology)<br /><br />Astronomy <br />Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler <br /><br />Mathematics<br />Blaine Pascal was the one who invented a machine to do calculations, which was an essential step to the development of the calculator and the computer.<br /><br /><br />Other<br />Sir Francis Bacon developed the scientific method.<br /><br />As you can see, these were men who held a biblical worldview and believed that God created the universe and based on this presupposition, it was possible to attain knowledge of the natural world; it was possible to discover the natural laws which were created by God. Look at the major contributions that these people have made. Where would we be without them? <br /><br />Modern Science<br /><br />Modern science can be separated into two areas: Operational (or empirical) Science and Historical (or Origins) Science. <br /><br />Operational (empirical) science uses the scientific method to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science. It is the kind of science that has made technological advances possible. <br /><br />Historical (Origins) science attempts to discover truth in the past by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see. This is the area in which evolution and creation fall under. Every scientist has metaphysical presuppositions that they bring in before they conduct their study of origins. For example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood. <br /><br />So, the nature of the creation vs. evolution debate is not religion vs. science, it is religion vs. religion. Creation science begins with a biblical framework whereas evolutionary science begins with a naturalistic framework. These two frameworks are metaphysical and cannot be proven by using the scientific method. It is a faith that both sides bring in order to try to understand the origins of the earth and the universe. So the evidence does not “speak” for itself, it must be interpreted within the framework of one of these two metaphysical presuppositions. <br /><br />A survey of Creation Science and Evolutionary Science<br /><br />Based on the understanding that creation and evolution are both metaphysical frameworks based on biblical and naturalistic assumptions respectively, it is necessary to have a good understanding of these two interpretations of historical science. <br /><br /><br />Geological Assumptions<br /><br />Evolutionary science is dependent on the earth being a few billion years old. Where did the idea of the earth being 4.5 – 4.7 billion years old come from? This is a position that relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism. This concept was developed by Charles Lyell in the early part of the 19th century. It states that the conditions and processes to develop geological formations have always been the same. By using this metaphysical framework, we can come to the conclusion that the earth is millions to billions of years old, ASSUMING THAT THESE PROCESSES HAVE ALWAYS REMAINED THE SAME. So if you are trying to figure how the Grand Canyon formed and how long it took to form, you can come in with this assumption and say that water has always been flowing and eroding the rocks at a constant rate, therefore it is millions of years old. The only problem is that you do not know for sure if the water of the Colorado River has been being flowing and eroding these rocks at the same rate. Perhaps there was something else that interfered with this slow process, thus causing it to form more rapidly. You see, this is where a “leap of faith” must be taken. In the end, you must believe that this process has remained the same. <br />Now, there is a method called “radioisotope (radiometric) dating” that is hailed by evolutionists to be the absolute authority in determining the age of the earth. They claim that this method is very reliable (carbon dating is part of this kind of method). So what is radioisotope dating? It is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. The original element is referred to as the parent element and the end result is called the daughter element. Radioisotope dating is commonly used to date igneous rocks. These are rocks which form when hot, molten material cools and solidifies. Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). The radioisotope dating clock starts when a rock cools. During the molten state it is assumed that the intense heat will force any gaseous daughter elements to escape. Once the rock cools it is assumed that no more atoms can escape and any daughter element found in a rock will be the result of radioactive decay. The dating process then requires measuring how much daughter element is in a rock sample and knowing the decay rate (i.e., how long it takes the parent element to decay into the daughter element—uranium into lead or potassium into argon). The decay rate is measured in terms of half-life. Half-life is defined as the length of time it takes half of the remaining atoms of a radioactive parent element to decay. For example, the remaining radioactive parent material will decrease by 1/2 during the passage of each half-life (1→1/2→1/4→1/8→1/16, etc.). Half-lives as measured today are very accurate, even the extremely slow half-lives. That is, billion-year half-lives can be measured statistically in just hours of time. Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element, however, the dating methods must rely on historical science. As mentioned before, this is where the metaphysical assumptions come in, and there are three critical assumptions that affect the results during radioisotope dating:<br />1. You must have an idea of the initial conditions of the rock sample. <br />2. You must hope that the amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample have not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.<br />3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope must have remained constant since the rock was formed.<br />Like the assumption of uniformitarianism, the problem is that you do not know for sure that the amount of parent or daughter elements in the sample has not been altered by other processes. Since nobody knows this for sure, then one must take a leap of faith to believe that this method is reliable. There have been numerous examples of this method being inconsistent. The most notable one is the Mount St. Helens eruption that took place back in 1980. A team of scientist recovered newly formed rock from this eruption and used potassium-argon dating to determine the age of this rock. When this method was being done, it was a few years after the eruption, so the age of this rock was already known, but for the sake of determining the reliability of radioisotope dating, this method was done and the results showed that the rock was 3.5 million years old! As you can see, this method is not as reliable as evolutionists believe it is, however, they could still choose to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if they want, but they must recognize that it is a leap of faith. <br /><br />When it comes to determining the age of the earth for creation science, we rely on biblical assumptions (the account of creation and Noah’s flood) and an assumption called catastrophism, which states that geological formations can develop rapidly as a result of a catastrophe such as a major volcanic eruption or a major flood. There is evidence for such formations. The Mt. St. Helens eruption is a great example. This eruption has created layers of sediments in a very short time. If an eruption of this same type took place 1,000 years ago and was never recorded or observed, evolutionary geologists would probably assume that these sediment layers took millions of years to form. This eruption shows that it can form in less than a few months. There was also formation of coal after this eruption. Evolutionary geologists say that coal forms over millions of years. Finally, this eruption ended up carving up a canyon 150 feet deep over a day! Another example includes the formation of a small canyon in Texas back in 2002. There was a major flood on the banks of the Guadalupe River and after the waters receded, there was a “little” canyon that formed. Once again, if this happened 1,000 years ago and this event was not observed, evolutionary geologists would probably make the assumption that this canyon took millions of years to develop. These examples should be good enough to demonstrate that uniformitarianism is not as reasonable as some people think it is and that catastrophism is a plausible position. Now imagine what a catastrophe such as a global flood can do in regards to sediment deposition, development of canyons, and other geological formations. You see, it is not stupid to believe that the earth could possibly be 6,000 to 10,000 years old. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Biological Assumptions<br /><br /> The general theory of evolution states that all life is descended from a single-cell organism. This single-cell organism supposedly appeared 3.9 billion years ago. This single-cell organism contained DNA and proteins (organic molecules or living molecules). These organic molecules (molecules containing carbon) evolved from inorganic molecules (or non-living molecules) in what is called abiogenesis (or chemical evolution). So in essence, inorganic molecules randomly came together to form organic molecules, which eventually gave rise to a single-cell organism and through eons of time, one kind of organism evolved into another kind, thus giving us this vast array of biodiversity. In order for this to happen, new genetic information must arise so that more complex, higher forms of life can come into existence. The general theory of evolution falls under the category of historical science, not operational science. <br /> <br />Before addressing the biological assumptions of creation science, it is necessary to explain natural selection, speciation, and adaptation (which fall under operational science). Natural selection is the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that have a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation. For example, let us suppose that there are two species of mammals living in the arctic region; one species has very thick fur, while the other has thin fur. Of course, the species with the thick fur would survive and produce offspring while the species with the thin fur would die off. Speciation is the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors (or simply said: the formation of new species). The lion and the tiger, which both are of the cat kind (or the biological family of Felidae), are a result of speciation. Adaptation is a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment. A perfect example would be the natural selection example: the mammal with thick fur is adapted to cold climates. <br />Evolutionists and creationists agree with these three biological concepts; they are observable so there are no disagreements here. It is important to note that these three concepts don’t necessarily prove the general theory of evolution! Nobody has observed reptiles evolve into birds, or fishes evolve into reptiles, or apes evolving into humans! This is what the general theory of evolution tells us, yet it has never been observed. Natural selection, speciation, and adaptation doesn’t give us a new biological family; it already works within the family because it can only operate with the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new genetic information. When it comes to speciation, the genetic information that is already present is either shuffled around or lost; there is no new genetic information. So with the observational evidence that we have, there is hardly any support for the general theory of evolution. The only change that happens is within the biological family; that’s all that has been observed. If one wants to believe in the general theory of evolution, he/she has the right to do that, but they must be honest and recognize that it a metaphysical belief that falls into historical science. Unfortunately, most evolutionists ignore that and have evolution masqueraded as a part of operational science. They also have natural selection, speciation, and adaptation masqueraded as evolution. That’s academically unsound, yet it is widely done throughout the western world. <br /><br />With natural selection, speciation, and adaptation being defined, the biological assumptions of creation science can be explained. When God created all living things, representatives of all kinds of families came into existence; from microbial organisms all the way to different kinds of fauna and flora. Each living thing had enough genetic information for speciation to occur. For example, domestic cats, lions, cheetahs, tigers, and panthers all descended from this original kind of cat that was originally created by God. It is reasonable to believe this because that’s what we observe. With the global flood that took place in Noah’s time, all the land animals died which is why we have many fossils buried deep within the rock layers. All the animals that were preserved on Noah’s ark were representatives of each kind, which had enough genetic information to have speciation occur once they left the ark. When these animals left the ark, they migrated to different parts of the world and were able to proliferate. With the incredible amount of genetic information they had, speciation was able to continue thus giving us this vast array of biodiversity that we see today. Of course, with each new species that formed, they either had their genetic information reshuffled or lost (most of the time they would lose genetic information). I guess you can call creationists “devolutionists” in a way. <br /><br />Design in nature <br /><br /> When one studies biology, you cannot help notice that there is some sort of design in the physiology, in the cells, and in the molecular biology of living things. Perhaps the best example of design may be the molecular structures within a living cell. Dr. Michael Denton, who is a molecular biologist, said this back in 1986: <br /><br />“Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced twentieth century technology appears clumsy… It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”<br /><br />Even the atheist and zoologist Dr. Richard Dawkins said that “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” <br /><br />In the area of molecular biology, scientists have found thousands of “biochemical machines” within the cell. All of their parts have to be within the cell simultaneously or else the cell cannot function. All living things are built on these “machines” and the idea that all of these came to existence by the blind forces of evolution seems untenable. The biochemist Dr. Michael Behe refers to this as “irreducible complexity,” in which he says:<br /><br />“… systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in recent times who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.”<br />The bacterial flagellum is a good, specific example of this kind of irreducible complexity. The flagellum is a corkscrew-shaped, hair-like appendage attached to the cell surface, which acts like a propeller, allowing the bacterium to swim. The most interesting aspect of the flagellum is that it is attached to—and rotated by—a tiny, electrical motor made of different kinds of protein. Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane. If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. All the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all. In the evolutionary scheme, any component which doesn’t offer an advantage to an organism will be lost or discarded. How such a structure could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by the general theory of evolution is a difficult obstacle to evolutionists. The design of the flagellum is remarkable.<br />So now the question is, as we all can recognize design to some extent in the natural world, WHO designed all of this? Was it aliens from outer space as Dr. Richard Dawkins believe it is? Of course, if it were aliens, then we would ask how they came into existence. There must be an Uncaused Cause and an Ultimate Intelligence. It is very reasonable to believe that the ultimate intelligent being Himself, God, is responsible for all of this. The design of the natural world points to a designer, it doesn’t directly prove the existence of a transcendent designer, but atheistic evolution is not adequate enough to explain it. <br />Conclusion<br /> So the question of whether Christians use science to support their beliefs has been adequately answered, however, it must be emphasized that modern science (particularly operational science) neither directly proves nor disproves the existence of God or any other metaphysical entity or presuppositions, it can only provide support (or indirect proof). Empirical science does not deal with immaterial substances or being. So Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc. cannot be directly proved by modern science. This essay should have expressed an introductory understanding of what science is and how metaphysical presupposition is intermingled with it. The division of modern science (operational and historical science) is a very important distinction to know. Evolution is usually equated with operational science which is academically unsound. Evolution and Creation are part of historical science; therefore the metaphysical presuppositions affect the interpretation of the evidence. All view of origins must be respected! Unfortunately, dissenters of evolution are mistreated and disrespected. It is as if the evolutionists are now becoming the Inquisition of the 21st Century. There are many intelligent scientists who do not adhere to the general theory of evolution. I respect those who are evolutionists. Those who resort to insulting those with different aspects of origins are insecure with their own view. If we are to debate this, let it be done with academic honesty and respect. I do not believe evolution is absurd or stupid, I just think that it is untenable and insufficient. I hope someday that evolutionists can have that same kind of respectful disagreement for our view of origins; there are some evolutionists that are like that, but the majority is not like that. I hope that you can see that believing in creation is not absurd.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-44031981520119842812008-12-02T13:52:00.002-05:002008-12-02T14:11:43.587-05:00Organic Church by Neil Cole - A quotational reviewAs many of you know I'm not a big fan of book reviews. Nevertheless, I love to write down quotes from a book that catch certain parts of the message of the book. Here are some of those quotes that caught my attention from this book. I'd love to read what you guys think about these:<br /><br />"If we build a church that is based on a charismatic personality, an innovative methodology, or anything else, we have church that is inferior to that which Jesus would build." (p. 8)<br /><br />"Why must people wake up early on sunday, get dressed up, and drive to a specific location to sit in rows looking all morning at the back of some guy's head while a person they don't know talks to them about the latest prescription of three steps to a better life? Is this experience really supposed to change their lives forever?" (p. xxv)<br /><br />"We believe that church should happen wherever life happens." (p. 24)<br /><br />"Most Christian church are trying to figure out how to bring lost people to Jesus. The key to starting churches that reproduce spontaneously is to bring Jesus to lost people." (p. 24)<br /><br />"Many a church continues long after the soul of the church has departed because the building itself keeps them going. A building can become an artificial life support system that keeps a church alive even though it died long ago." (p. 37)<br /><br />"Our problem is not in bricks and mortar; it is in our minds." (p. 38)<br /><br />"...running church shows on Sunday morning..." (p. 40 - taken out of context - )<br /><br />"The Church is not to be identified by bumper stickers or fish signs any more than by constitutions and bylaws." (p. 48)<br /><br />"Rather than starting with the questions of what church is, we start by asking how we can make it bigger, or better, or start more of them." (p. 49)<br /><br />"Unfortunately, in most church in the Western world the presence of the pastor is more noticeable than the presence of Jesus." (p. 57)<br /><br />"What we draw them with is what we draw them to." (p. 95)<br /><br />So how do you guys respond to this author? These quotes do make the book sound like a big bashing tirade. In some ways it was, but it is not without a constructive alternative. Neil Cole goes on to present his view of what a church should look like according to scripture. It is very interesting, and most of it is really good. His method of church certainly sounds more natural (organic). Basically, we go out to where unbelievers are at, pray for them, form relationships with the mindset that God will open doors for witness, and when converts are made form meetings at their houses. Here prayer, worship, and bible reading are major aspects of what he calls Awakening Chapels - not so focused on topical sermons. These groups have a mission to go out and find more lost people and begin new chapels in different homes, parking lots, anywhere. Those converts in turn do the same, and so on. The book explains it a little bit more gracefully than this of course. <br /><br />May God bless you all.<br /><br />Remy.<br /><em></em><em></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-19377425516281314772008-11-14T17:33:00.010-05:002009-03-28T13:15:17.655-04:00Is there an answer for those who believe in homosexual rights?You may have noticed that this weekend, in California and Florida, gay protesters will be on the news. Why? Reason being that they have decided to voice their disdain on the passing of the marriage amendments in California and Florida. The amendments in both states basically said that marriage should be between one man and one woman for it to be recognized by the the state respectively.<br /><br />Well, yesterday I came across a comment by Keith Olbermann (host for "Countdown" on MSNBC) regarding the passing of Prop 8 in California.<br /><br />I encourage you to watch and pay close attention to his sincere and heartfelt comment. Once you have watched Keith Olbermann's comment in its entirety, please watch the second video by Ravi Zacharias.<br /><br />In the second video, Ravi Zacharias brilliantly addresses a heartfelt question on homosexuality. I encourage you to comment your thoughts on this post.<br /><br /><br />Keith Olbermann "What Is It to You"<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVUecPhQPqY&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVUecPhQPqY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br /><br />Ravi Zacharias<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qkCkXU0e75k&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qkCkXU0e75k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br /><br />Coram Deo,Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-19262766150413002052008-11-05T21:40:00.006-05:002009-03-28T13:15:39.013-04:00So the wait is over.... or is it?America has voted... and the American Idol, I mean President, is Barack Obama!<br /><br />The following are just some random thoughts that have crossed my mind throughout the day.<br /><br />At work, I witnessed people expressing this sense of relief and "joy". On the other hand, there were others that were just simply in disbelief. Right now, I can say that my heart is heavy with these election results. Yet, I also realize that my hope and trust is not in man but in Christ.<br /><br />What really saddens me is not the fact that the vast majority voted for Obama. Rather, that Christians (meaning followers of Christ) voted in such an irresponsible way. From what I have researched (and I don't mean watching CNN, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">MSNBC</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">FOXNEWS</span>, etc...), I never saw <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Obama's</span> "christian" beliefs and convictions lining up with scripture. How could he justify abortion when the Bible teaches that God abhors such evil. When has the environment ever <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">superceded</span> the sanctity of life? Now do not mistake what I am saying. I am not saying that Christians should not care about the environment, because I believe Scripture teaches that.<br /><br />I can't even begin to describe how many "professing" Christians actually support same-sex marriage. Have these people forgotten why God judged such nations as Sodom and Gomorrah? I recently read someone write on another blog that "you don't have to be gay to support gay rights. Just like you don't have to be Black to vote for a Black presidential candidate" referring to California voting for Obama while voting to ban same-sex marriages at the same time. May I add that the connection this person makes is simply incorrect. When talking about homosexual relationships one is dealing with the issue of immorality or morals. A person's race or ethnicity does not deal with morals. In other words, if someone enters into a homosexual relationship it is sin. Being Cuban, White, Black, Hispanic, etc... is not sin before God. Please do not misconstrue my words. I am not trying nor implying that one should bash homosexuals. You see, as a believer, I love the sinner but hate the sin. That fact that one calls out the sin, whether it be homosexuality, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">drunkenness</span>, pride, drug use, adultery, etc... does not mean one is bashing the person as well. To God, sin separates us from Him. Homosexuality is not any worse than the actions mentioned above.<br /><br />G.K. Chesterton said it best when he said, "Art like morality consists of drawing the line somewhere"<br /><br />The question inevitably comes down to, are we going to love the things that God loves and hate the things that God hates?<br /><br />Where and when are we going to draw the line?<br /><br />I close with two quotes, both by John Piper. The first is from an article called "Let Christians Vote as if They Were Not Voting"<br /><br /><br />“<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning.”</span> <p style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Christians mourn with real, deep, painful mourning, especially over losses—loss of those we love, loss of health, loss of a dream. These losses hurt. We cry when we are hurt. But we cry as though not crying. We mourn knowing we have not lost something so valuable we cannot rejoice in our mourning. Our losses do not incapacitate us. They do not blind us to the possibility of a fruitful future serving Christ. The Lord gives and takes away. But he remains blessed. And we remain hopeful in our mourning. </p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><em>So it is with voting.</em> There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (<a class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Revelation%2013.7" target="_blank">Revelation 13:7</a>). In the long run, we win (<a class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Revelation%2021.4" target="_blank">Revelation 21:4</a>)." </p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><br /></p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The last quote is John Piper's prayer the day before the election:</span></p><p><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">"</span>Father in heaven, as we approach this election on Tuesday, I pray </p><p>1) that your people will vote, </p><p>2) and that they will vote with a sense of thankfulness for a democratic system that at least partially holds in check the folly and evil in all our hearts so that power which corrupts so readily is not given to one group or person too easily; </p><p>3) that we would know and live the meaning of </p><ul><li>being in the world, but not of it, </li><li>doing politics as though not doing them, </li><li>being on the earth, yet having our lives hidden with Christ in God,</li><li>rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God’s;</li></ul><p>4) that we would discern what truths and values should advance by being made law and which should advance only by the leavening of honest influence; </p><p>5) that your people would see what love and justice and far-seeing wisdom demand in regard to the issues of education, business and industry, health care, marriage and family, abortion, welfare, energy, government and taxes, military, terrorism, international relations, and every challenge that we will face in the years to come; </p><p>6) and above all, that we will treasure Jesus Christ, and tell everyone of his sovereignty and supremacy over all nations, and that long after America is a footnote to the future world, he will reign with his people from every tribe and tongue and nation. </p><p>Keep us faithful to Christ’s all important Word, and may we turn to it every day for light in these dark times. </p><p>In Jesus’ name, </p><p>Amen"</p><p><br /></p><p>Be encouraged during this time. May we be servants that are ready to give an answer as to the hope that we have in Christ. May we speak of our Lord's good name and redemptive message, so that He may reap a harvest through His children. I encourage all Christians to pray for Obama and as always that our Lord's will would be done here on earth as it is in heaven. The wait isn't over as we wait in joyful hope for our Lord's return.<br /></p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span><br /></p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><br /></p><p style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span><br /></p>Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-38776252023217090452008-10-15T16:24:00.003-04:002009-03-28T13:13:27.027-04:00Obama(nos) para la casa or McSame?Today is the last debate between "Obama(nos) para la Casa" and "John McSame". With 20 days left until American citizens go to the polls to vote for then next president of the United States, I still am very confused as who to vote for.Freddyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01771363267258666130noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-71726019821730699792008-08-28T14:05:00.003-04:002008-08-28T21:53:01.150-04:00A log in my eye...Recently, one of my students came up to me and asked me: 'How do I respond to an unbeliever who is committing sin?' In trying to answer it we were led to various other questions: 'Should I respond to an unbeliever who is sinning?' 'Should I allow sin to occur within my circle of influence?' 'What sins should I help refrain and which ones should I let slide?'<br /><br />I think we all understand that those that are in Christ view sin differently. I remember the many times that I disobeyed the Word of God before I committed my life to Christ. I felt little guilt (if any), and almost no remorse. The day that I asked Jesus to cleanse me from all sin I experienced the conviction of the Holy Spirit. My friend and I were driving in his car and I used a curse word in our conversation. I had grown up with very few Christian influences. I had only been to church one day of my life (that same day). Yet, I immediately sensed that I should not use that kind of vocabulary. This wasn't a conscious decision. It was an instantaneous reaction. Granted, some things I know are wrong because God's Word makes it clear that they are, rather than because I feel they're wrong.<br /><br />I try not sin, because my desire is to please God, but who am I to tell someone who doesn't believe in God not to sin? Should I tell an unbeliever not to cheat on his taxes because it displeases God? Should I encourage someone not to use foul language, or take the name of the Lord in vain, or bear false witness? What would that look like in actuality? Should I attempt to conjure images of a just God punishing them for their sin, or should I give them "non-religious" reasons for staying away from sin? Should I only bring it up if it's affecting other people?<br /><br />What do you guys think?<br /><br />Remy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-49957277991387879192008-07-23T00:07:00.007-04:002009-03-28T13:06:46.590-04:00Special Request - The Power of God or the power of something else?When speaking to a public audience I shy away from making critical comments about particular people or organizations, but I believe that there is reason to consider doing otherwise. Earlier tonight I spoke to Sirac Cardoza. He asked me to post a question that he and his girlfriend would really like discussed on the blog. Before I do so I feel like I have to warn readers because I do not want anyone to stumble. I will be naming specific ministries in the next paragraph in order to phrase Sirac's question. The purpose of the question is not to spitefully criticize these ministries, but rather to find what is of God and what isn't (I John 4:1-3), and to do so in love (I John 4:7-11). I believe that this is a very timely question for the church today, in particular the church in Miami.<br /><br /> Is the message that the modern 'Spiritual Warfare' and 'Word of Faith' movement teaches biblical? If you live in Miami long enough you are bound to meet someone that attends 'El Rey Jesus.' For almost one year I faithfully served at that church. I must say that some of my deepest, treasured, and life changing spiritual moments occurred through the work that I believe God did in me through that church. I learned a lot, and saw a lot of areas of my personal life healed and restored. Yet, these controversial teachings mentioned earlier are often taught at charismatic churches like 'El Rey Jesus.' This was not the only, nor the first charismatic church I've attended. I have spent half of my Christian life in charismatic churches and the other half in 'noncharismatic' churches, if I could label them that way. I have found that there is good and there is bad in both. <br /><br /> Certainly, because we are a part of the church in Miami, this is an important topic to discuss. How should we as Christians react to the teachings at churches like El Rey Jesus and others that are steeped in the 'Word of Faith' and 'Spiritual Warfare' movement? I have met some amazing believers that I admire in these churches, but I can't help but not be able to scripturally agree with all that they teach. In particular, teachers like Ana Mendez and Guillermo Maldonado teach wonderful biblical principles, but also teach some things that are difficult to support scripturally. I have had interesting experiences in the past trying to pin down where some of these doctrines arise and have found that some come from what these teachers consider to be prophetic revelations from God that I can best explain as extra-biblical. <br /> <br /> In a spirit of utmost gentleness towards this very real and timely situation that Christians like Sirac encounter, can someone help us how to understand these teachings? Are they biblical? partially biblical? Are these prophets or false prophets? How should we react to these teachings and to its followers? -- Everyone's input is welcome so long as it is done in love. Sirac also mentioned that he would be extremely blessed and grateful if Bill would find the time to put down his thoughts, as well as Berny. Thank you guys.<br /><br />Gracefully in Christ,<br /><br />Remy.<br /><br />I John 4:1, Matthew 7:20-23, I John 4:8Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-67530485742794348522008-07-21T01:03:00.003-04:002009-03-28T13:08:32.444-04:00Anthropology of Early ChristianityAnthropology of Early Christianity<br /> Early Christianity (the post-Apostolic age called “Patristic”) offers no breakthroughs beyond the anthropological perspective of the Bible (please review Old Testament and New Testament Anthropologies).<br /><br /> Beginning with Tertulian’s (d. 222) De Anima, the early Christian writers present an element of systemization around certain fundamental principles concerning human existence—e.g., the human person as imago Dei and that the universe’s history is the history of divinization and salvation. Irenæus of Lyon (d. 202, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Beloved) expressed these two themes resoundingly in his Adversus Hæreses (Latin for, “Against the Heresies,” the heresies being Gnosticism and related errors).<br /><br /> Of anthropological interest is the core of Irenæus’ theology: his theory of recapitulation. Irenæus borrows the idea of recapitulation from Paul yet expands on it greatly. By recapitulation, Irenæus means that Christ took up or summed up all that is or has been from the creation. Jesus Christ is the Second Human Being, the Second Adam, in which God gathers up everything and renews it, restores it, and reorganizes it despite it all being sidetracked in the Fall of the First Adam (which Irenæus sees more like a tantrum, a spat from the immature want to grow up ahead of time, rather than a full-blown rebellion). Salvation history is a process by which we grow and develop from immaturity to adults. Because the entire human race was lost through the First Human Being’s childish sin, in order to bring about the re-creation of humankind the Son of God had to become a mature human being (incidentally, Irenæus believed that even had the first human couple not sinned, Christ would still have been sent). Irenæus writes:<br /><br /> “…when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh (or he recapitulated in himself) the long history of humanity, summing up and giving us salvation in order that we might receive again in Christ Jesus what we had lost in Adam, that is, the image and likeness of God.”<br /> (Adversus Hæreses III, 18:1).<br /><br /> We must admit that as the Church spread and engaged Greek thought, classical metaphysical dualism was incorporated into theology where it has endured. This has created MAJOR pitfalls for understanding human existence. In the writings of Eastern or Greek Fathers like the brilliant Gregory of Nyssa (d. about 394) there persists a tension between spirit and matter. They see that human fulfillment is possible because of our spiritual aspect or half, one half of human nature, where we already stand on God’s side. Thus the goal lies after death in the vision of God. This vision only comes about after we are purified and restored to our original purity. Meanwhile, for Western or Latin Theology, especially that influenced by the brilliant Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), the tension lies between the merciful God and the human person as sinner. As Henry Rondet cites in The Grace of Christ (pg. 136): “Every man is Adam, every man is Christ.” What then becomes of the story of the Universe? Certainly it cannot be seen as “the free history of God in the world,” ala the theological anthropology of the Bible. No; seeing things this way the history of the world becomes rather this: “the story of how what was divided becomes reunified,” or, if you prefer, “how a screw-up gets fixed,” or even “the story of how divine liquid plumber clears the mundane pipe of human waste.” Additionally, the Neo-Platonic, dualistic, and hierarchical interpretation of Imago Dei in Augustine’s theology contributed to the legitimization of the subordinate role for women in Church and society. Dualistically, Augustine ascribed to mind-over-body and reasons-over-passions hierarchies and correlated “maleness” with mind-reason and “femaleness” with body-passions (this can be seen clearly in Confessions). Humanity (hominem), declares Augustine, is made to God’s Image and Likeness, and thus by powers of his capacity to reason is set ABOVE all nonrational animals; this higher reason rules the lower body; and just the same, even though Woman, because of her rational mind, bears equal nature to the Male, according to Augustine she is inferior in her bodily sex and therefore is subject to the male sex (Confessions 13:32:47). As far as Image of God goes, the Woman, in this dualist schema, is not equal to the male in her embodied self. Thus she is depicted as more matter than spirit, somewhat less human than the male (in fact, the word for “mother” in Greek, mater, is where we get our word matter—the changeable, inconstant stuff this mundane world is made of, “Mother Earth”). Males are the normative human beings—women are at best ‘mutilated males.’ This tendency to dichotomize continues throughout the following Medieval period.<br /><br /> Anthropology of Medieval Christianity<br /> No theological, philosophical, or scientific advancements concerning understanding human existence were made during the Medieval Period (this would not happen until the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth centuries). Medieval thought was static and incapable of doing justice to the special character of the human person. The history of salvation was given little if any attention. Human beings simply ARE—they do not grow and develop! They simply are with an unchanging essence. The human person, like all beings (or things, or entities, or creatures) was seen as a substance and as an OBJECT, a thing “in-itself.”<br /><br /> Here we find no real theological analysis of the fundamental experiences of joy, anguish, and death. Human behavior was not related to our actions. The universe and its history were seen as a ready-made stage for each individual human drama to unfold. Would the person save his or her own soul, or not, in the End? Nothing could be added to the Universe and its history for it was set and STATIC. And if static, then the world and history are not in process—and if that is true, then neither are us human beings.<br /><br /> Counterindications—evidence of some first orientation to an authentic anthropology—were present in Medieval theology, however. Certain trends of thought would eventually give rise to modern anthropologies where the human person is seen also as SUBJECT, a thing “turned-toward-others” in dynamic relationships. Despite the Medieval reflections on salvation with a nonhistorical cast, their tremendously individual focus paved the way for moderns to emphasize human persons as subjects. The Beatific Vision, i.e., the immediate, unobstructed experience of God after death by the saved INDIVIDUAL was stressed by contemporary theology. And also developed (via Augustine’s thought) were nonsacramental possibilities of salvation by that theology, the so-called votum sacramenti (or desire for the sacrament, SUBJECTIVE) where an individual’s basic good will (SUBJECTIVE and PRIVATE), under some CIRCUMSTANCES (RELATIVE), replace the need for Baptism. If this were true, there must be then something of enduring and fundamental importance about all those activities and processes of the human mind, will, and SUBJECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS. This was assumed in the remarkably provident teaching of Thomas Aquinas concerning the inviolability of conscience, even when it is in opposition to ecclesiastical law.<br /><br /> It would be Scholastic philosophy, and the theology birthed from it, that would provide the true foundation for modern recognition of genuine subjectivity: it noted, to quote Karl Rahner, that “anything is or has being in proportion to the degree in which it is subjectivity in possession of itself.” Or to put it another way, and perhaps more dynamically: life moves to higher and higher levels of self-reflection; the highest forms of life not only “are aware”, we “are aware that we are aware.” We “know that we know.” And the more conscious we are of ourselves, of our knowing powers, of our powers to decide, of our thoughts’ implications, of our judgments and actions, the more we are ourselves, the more we are in possession of ourselves, the more or greater is our “genuine subjectivity.” The point: even though Medieval theology failed at being attentive to the subjective side of human existence, nonetheless crucial first-steps were made in anticipation of Modern understanding of subjectivity.<br /><br /> Anthropology of the Modern Period<br /> Scientific, philosophical, and theological breakthroughs in understanding human existence begin in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the discoveries of Darwin and Freud, Marx’ new social analysis, the human person as subject in the philosophy of Kant and idealism as the new focus, and with modern psychology. In a time of rapid and substantial change, the meaning of human existence assumes new and urgent force. Various attempts have been made in these modern times to answer the question, “who are we?” Here are a few of the major voices and what they offer:<br /><br /> 1. Charles Darwin and the natural sciences say that we are creatures linked biologically with the rest of creation. Human existence is not simply given. It is something to be worked out through the process of evolution and adaptation of the environment.<br /><br /> 2. While the natural sciences concern themselves with the interaction of human behavior and the world outside the person, one of the social sciences, psychology, has concerned itself with the interaction of human behavior and the world inside the person. This is the special contribution of Sigmund Freud. Human existence is not merely knowing what to do (intellectual) and then deciding to do it (free will). There are unconscious drives, forces, and motives that influence, probably even determine, our choices and behavior.<br /><br /> 3. Sociologists and economists focus on the social, economic, and political context into which human persons find themselves. Karl Marx, like Freud, insists that human problems are traceable to conflicts produced by alienation. Whereas Freud would say the alienation is from one’s true self, for Marx, it is from the fruits of one’s labors and thus from the industrialized world and from other people. It is only in and through society that persons can live as human beings. The collective defines who and what we are.<br /><br /> 4. Feminist thought presents a wide-ranging, interdisciplinary critique of the ethos and practice of sexism and gender discrimination, as expressed in patriarchal social, political, cultural, and religious structures and in andro-centric thought and language.<br /><br /> 5. Nineteenth and twentieth-century philosophical understanding of human existence cover a wide range of approaches: the phenomenological (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty), the existentialist (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Buber), the processive (Whitehead, Bergson), the pragmatic (James, Dewey), the positivistic (the early Wittgenstein, Russel, Carnap), and ordinary language philosophy (the later Wittgenstein, Austin, Ryle). In much of these philosophies there is an emphasis on the subjective, the changeable, the particular, and the practical, over against the objective, the unchanging, the universal, and the abstract. Human existence is not a given to be examined, but a potential in process of realization.<br /><br /> 6. Among contemporary philosophical currents there are those philosophies that go under the rubric “Continental” (the neo-Marxism of Habermas and Maarcuse; the hermeneutical approach of Gadamer; and the deconstructionism of Derrida). Most others in the English-speaking world go under the rubric “Analytic,” especially the philosophy of mind, with its biological and artificial-intelligence wings. Both are broadly naturalistic.<br /><br /> 7. Contemporary Thomism is similarly pluralistic. There is, in addition to the historians of medieval philosophy (Gilson), the post-Kantian European Thomism of Maréchal, known as Transcendental Thomism; the Thomism of the Lubin School (which includes John Paul II); and the Thomism found in some of the analytic philosophy in England (Anscombe, Kenny).<br /><br /> Likewise we see Theological movements with answers to the question of human existence:<br /><br /> In contemporary theology one detects two apparently opposed orientations: the existentialist which focuses on the subject and the importance of achieving sufficient self understanding, and the other, the liberationist, which focuses on the subject’s responsibility to criticize and to change an unjust social order.<br /><br /> This is an EXTREMELY small sampling. Common to all modern thought is that human existence is personal; the human person is a subject and is seen in terms of relations and systems of relations.<br /><br /> Because of these and other scientific, philosophical, and theological developments we have reached a crossroads. Improvements in transportation and communications have been made possible by empiriological science (understanding how things work) and technology (application of science to practical problems). The principal products have been material growth and educational progress. Material growth liberated human existence from preoccupation with acquiring the basic necessities of life; educational progress freed us from having to accept the status quo. Both have raised the human consciousness about racial and gender equality, and also about global independence. We are a global village. And yet material and educational progress are mixed blessings. As a result we have nuclear arms, wars, pollution and various environmental disasters, health hazards in food, and crime of all kinds. Human existence, once seen at the center of the universe, now is ever more cosmically marginalized.<br /><br /> Here then is the Crossroads: choose to live authentically in this time as modern Christians by critically appropriating the faith in light of the ramifications of modern times and seeing what God CONTINUES to tell us about human existence, or ignore this all and indulge in inauthentic mindless piety, bizarre enthusiasm, sick superstition or blind dogmatism—of course I speak of fundamentalism.<br /><br /> The time has come for an anthropological recasting of all our traditional doctrines. This has not yet been completed. However we seem to be moving that way as indicated by 1) the emergence of historical theology; 2) the recognition of religious pluralism; 3) the recognition of the universality of God’s saving grace; 4) the new regard for the world as something to be transformed by the Church; 5) recent renewal and interest in spirituality for the individual in his or her personal relationship with God; 6) and the extraordinarily rapid development of the feminist consciousness.<br /><br /> In order to construct a formal theological anthropology, one should take from the trends just noted:<br /><br /> 1. The insistence on conscience as the as the guide to truth and to genuine solutions to current problems<br /> 2. The fact that only in freedom can we direct ourselves toward goodness<br /> 3. Reference to our desire for higher life, a desire which “is inescapably lodged in the human heart” and which makes it possible to transcend our anxiety about death<br /> 4. Affirmation of the fundamental equality of men and women in the human community.<br /><br /> What is a human person, seen with all this? The human person is social, historical, of the world, with a call from God to COLLABORATE in the creation of history, in the transformation of the world, and even in the coming in the final Reign of God.<br /><br /> So to summarize historical thought on human existence: one, the early Christian writers make no breakthroughs in understanding human existence; two, Irenæus of Lyon and others emphasized strongly the human person as Imago Dei and human history as the history of divinization and salvation; three, Christ recapitulates in himself all that is human in the individual and in history; four, unfortunately the etendency to dichotomize between various dualities (especially matter and spirit) perdures; five, the Medieval period focuses on person as object, a creature among creatures, lower than an angel yet higher than the animal kingdom; six, unchanged by his history and environment, “man” is seen as an unchangeing essence; seven, by conceding that one could receive the grace of Baptism by desire, a turn from an objective to a subjective principle, Medieval theology unwittingly offers the basis of seeing person as subject; eight; in the so-called modern period a fundamental shift in our understanding human existence has occurred due to the impact of scientific, philosophical, and theological developments; nine, modern thought emphasizes the self-awareness of persons, our freedom and responsibility, and on the fundamental equality on men and women in the human community.<br /><br /> We are now ready to lay down a synthesis on the theology of the human person. I would then like to move on to the topic of nature and grace in the Bible, history, the Problem of nature and grace, and then original sin, and finally pose a theology of human existence as a synthesis. But before all that please critique this. Meanwhile, ahhhh, you know the drill—What do you think? What are the ramifications? What am I missing? How does this view on human existence affect prayer and faith? How would faith be expressed in this reality?<br /><br /> Till next time<br /> July 18, 2008 11:16 PMUnknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-50511783735108774452008-07-07T20:22:00.001-04:002008-07-07T20:22:43.882-04:00(cont'd) The doctrine of election: an honest and personal discussion(This post/comment is a continuation of the comments section under the post of this same title) <br /><br />Hi Berny,<br /><br />I’ve finally had the time to reply to your last comment. I want to thank you for your gentleness. It is so easy to be flustered and indignant. Trust me, I know! (lol) But really, thank you for being kind and patient. I hope I can be the same way, as well as anyone else joining our conversation.<br /><br />I’ll start with the image you left off on, which is that of the carnival ride. You said,<br /><I> The picture in Calvinist terms would be as follows: God is the operator of the ride who has called out to everyone in the amusement park to come and enter his ride (general call). Yet only a few out of the masses have desired to take him up on his offer (effectual call). And when the few arrive at the ride they tell God that at first they were inclined to go to the other rides like everyone else, but when God called they felt an overwhelming desire to go to his ride rather than the other ones. Meanwhile, the rest have rejected God's call to enter into his ride because they've desired other rides and have chosen to spend all their time visiting those other ones.</I> <br /><br />Sometimes I wonder if many of our disparities are simply an issue of semantics. I say that because this is a beautiful picture of what I, too, believe. But, if I understand the doctrine of election correctly, you left something out in this awesome image, and that is that the few that desired to take God up on his offer only did so because God determined that that’s what they’re going to desire and had no choice to desire otherwise. Similarly, those that did not desire God were determined to not desire Him before they were ever born. Without this doctrine I would agree with your analogy, but by tweaking it so that the doctrine of election is present in the analogy I then disagree.<br /><br /> I don’t disagree with you because of an intuitive sense that you’re wrong, as you say most Arminians do. I believe that God loves all and wants to save all and that ability limits responsibility, but it’s not from an intuitive sense. I believe this due to my reason coupled with my understanding of the Scriptures. There is an element of faith involved, but it is qualified by my reason.<br /><br />I can be convinced that I’m wrong. You have asked me this question once more. Yes, God can convince me through my reason and my desire to obey Him using the Scriptures to accept part or all of your points. But I have not been convinced. Nor am I convinced that I hold all doctrinal truths as they truly are (though I am convinced that I hold some – i.e. that Jesus is God incarnate). That in itself causes me to always consider that I may be wrong on many points (especially regarding these topics we’re discussing) and also causes me to analyze my reason and intentions. Because you’ve asked me this same question almost three times now (I’m sure not to hound me, but because you truly want me to think about what you’re asking) I wonder if with the same intention that you had I should turn the question around? Can you be convinced that you might be wrong on some of your points? I ask that with tenderness and for the sake of honesty, not in anger (may God please forgive me if any part of my heart wants to say it in anger).<br /><br />Your comment brings up the argument of what is the ultimate source of our choices. In particular, you imply that we don’t really have two choices. We always only have one, and therefore no choice. This is what you stated, <I> “None of us can both choose to pick up a pizza at the pizza place and at the same time choose to have it delivered. So upon closer inspection, what seems intuitively correct to us, that we have the ability to choose otherwise, has never been actually experienced by anyone.”</I> <br /><br />I want to reply to that by saying that there’s a big difference between the statement, “I can choose two contradictory things simultaneously” and the statement, “I can choose one thing out of many possible other things.” My free will is limited in that sense. I’ve always only chosen one thing out of two choices (two other things). And I can, with a good conscience, say that, with my understanding of Scripture, I had the opportunity to make the other choice (choose the other thing). As far as I know there are no parallel Universes in which each possible decision that we can make is played out. This would imply an infinite amount of parallel Universes. There are plenty of issues with that, but I won’t go down that trail.<br /> <br />You can then argue that the source of the choices anyone makes is God because we’ve always only had one choice. But if this is what you hold to, then are you implying that God is the ultimate source of all human choices, including ungodly choices? If that is the case then you’re saying that god tortured and killed over one million Jews through Hitler via gas chambers and other barbaric methods, that he has raped children, and injected drugs into the veins of heroin addicts. This might not be what you’re trying to say, but if indeed you’re saying that any time somebody makes a choice (good or bad) that it is really God doing it or determining it then please show me where in scripture you find this, because I am convinced as of now that that is a Scriptural, philosophical and experientially unsound statement, to say the very least. Please forgive my ardency if I’m mistaken on your stand. <br /><br />In terms of man’s choice, I understand that there are some things that I don’t determine. My free will is not infinite. Neither is God’s free will unlimited. For example, God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2) His free will is unlimited in that there is no more ability to act freely than that defined by God’s very nature. And by the very fact that we are not God then there are bound to be things that we do not determine and are determined by God, like where I’m born, who my family will be, how many brothers or sisters I will have, the color of the sky, etc. God created things with no free will (rocks) and creatures with limited free will (man, angels). There is a greater or lesser scale when it comes to God’s creatures and I believe that may be determined by how much free will they can exercise, or in other words, how much power they have. (Psalm 8:5) Asides from that, I believe that God has determined that whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life. And He has determined the believing to be determined by the individual.<br /><br />You say that scripture teaches that God does not love everyone and use the examples of Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and the antichrists. I do believe that God loves everyone. If the second commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and that we should love our enemies, applies to us, it is only because we are to be as God is. God won’t tell us to follow a principle that He Himself doesn’t hold to or believe to be true. The people you mentioned are also used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of election. I want to take each of these specific examples you pointed out and in the next paragraphs individually examine if indeed they support the doctrine of election and that God doesn’t love everyone. <br /><br />Jacob and Esau<br /><br />Any non-Christian Jew living before the time of Jesus would think of the election of the Jews over the gentiles when speaking of these two brothers. Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel, represents Israel the nation. For the Israelites, only they were the elect. To them was given the Law. Indeed, they were the elect in that they were given the Law, but we will see from Scripture that they were not the elect when it came to salvation (any gentile -- probably the majority of people that will read this blog -- must immediately see the problem with salvation being only for the Jews) <br /><br />Let’s look at Esau. Esau represents the Gentiles. The bible says that the Edomites are his descendants (Genesis 36). These are a gentile nation. In fact, Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, a daughter of a Hivite, and one of a Hitite, all gentile women. Genesis 25:23 says that in Rebekah’s womb are two nations, Jacob and Esau. This verse further supports that when thinking of Jacob and Esau the Israelites did not simply think of two individuals. They commonly thought of the nations these two represented: the Israelites and the Gentiles, the chosen and the unchosen. (I know that you know this, but most people think that this is where God states that He loves Jacob and hates Esau. This is actually not mentioned in Genesis. It is found in Malachi, for those reading that are unaware of this.)<br /><br />Let’s look at the Scriptures in question to determine if indeed this choosing refers to salvation. Genesis 25:23 “The LORD said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’” We see that God reveals that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob’s descendants. One, this revelation does not bring into question the subject salvation, but rather states that one nation will serve the other. In fact, we know now that gentile nations can be saved. Two, you do not have to assume that God determined that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob for this Scripture to be true. God who is outside of time can clearly see “the future” (though it’s only future to us, not to Him) and reveal it in our “present.”<br /><br />Let’s look at the verse that is really in question: Malachi 1:2-5 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'<br /><br />Let’s keep in mind two things: 1) Jacob represent the Israelites and Esau the gentiles. God referring to Esau as Edom the nation further supports this. 2) These verses, when taken in context, are not discussing soteriology (the study of salvation). God is declaring that He has loved Israel in blessing Israel and hated Esau in not blessing them and allowed them to be destroyed. The scriptures are not speaking in a salvific sense (in terms of salvation/redemption). He is showing the Israelites how He has a unique love for them by reminding them of the disparity between the Israelites and gentiles. God blessed the Israelites and not the gentiles. He gave the Israelites the Torah, to them was the Law, and through them the Messiah would come! Compared to the Israelites, God hates the gentiles! But the revelations granted to the Israelites throughout the Old Testament were only a shadow of what God would grant to the entire world! (Hebrews 10:1) God is not speaking of individuals, but nations! We as gentile Christians are convinced that God loves the gentiles. So then is God contradicting Himself when He says here that He hates the gentiles? No, we know from scripture that God always had the Gentiles in mind when it came to salvation. The covenant God made with Abraham was for all of his descendants (Genesis 22:17). Esau was a descendant of Abraham! The Jews were so stubborn in not realizing that God loves the gentiles too and wants them to be saved that Paul even referred to this as the “mystery of the gospel.” (Romans 16:25-26) But it is clear that God planned for the gentiles to be blessed as well. (Galatians 3:8-9) <br /><br />God loved the Israelites and chose them in order to bring the Messiah through their lineage. This is not the same love that God showed the gentiles. We cannot claim to have that. But God still offers the gentiles salvation and loves them in that sense. In fact, so much so, that just because you’re born an Israelite you’re not automatically saved! It is only for those that believe by faith, Jew or Greek. (Romans 1:16-17)<br /><br />One more point, Jesus mentions in Luke 14:26 that "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” When he says hate, should we interpret it as emotional hate? This would be completely contradictory to what He mentions within the context of the entirety of scripture: love your enemies (Luke 6:27), honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12), and the second greatest commandment which is to love one another (Matthew 22:29). So what does He mean by hate your father, mother, wives, and children? Is there any of you or a pastor that teaches Christians that they should emotionally hate their wife, their children, and their mother? No, because taken in the context of the whole of scripture we know that Jesus did not mean an emotional hate. To the Jews the word hate could also mean to ‘love less.’ (Matthew 10:37, Genesis 29:31-33, Deuteronomy 21:15, http://moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/hate_our_mother_father.htm, http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm) Compared to how we love God, we should love our mother less, our wife less, our children less, etc. Compared to how God loves the Israelites you could argue that he loves the gentiles less. The Messiah was not born to a gentile nation. So in that sense, compared to God’s love for Jacob God loves Esau less (he doesn’t have the honor of having the Law and the Prophets), but God still loves him and offered him salvation as well. God loves him so much that He offers to all of his descendants the possibility of becoming part of the same olive tree! (Romans 11) So that there is no difference between Jew and Greek (Galatians 3:28).<br /><br />Now that I have finished making my point, I also want to take quote from a website I read just to add another interesting facet to this argument:<br /><br />“It is important to note that even though God chose Jacob, He did not refuse to be gracious to the descendants of Esau. In fact we find in Deuteronomy that the Israelites were forbidden to make war against them at one point. <br /><br />Deuteronomy 2:4 And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: 5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. 6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.” http://www.truthablaze.com/esau.html<br /><br />To sum up: God loves Jacob and Esau, because all of scripture reveals that God loves the world. But God can say that he hated Esau because compared to Jacob, God loved him less. Scripture shows that the Jews understood that the word hate refers to loving less. God loved Esau less only in that the Messiah and the Law would come through his lineage, but in terms of salvation he loved them equally and determined that salvation will not come to you based on the circumstances of your physical birth, but rather on whether you believe.<br /><br />Pharaoh<br /><br />Let’s look at the verse that mentions that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.<br /><br />Exodus 9:12 “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” <br /><br />This comes after Pharaoh has hardened his own heart. (Exodus 7:22, 8:19, 9:7) The scripture does not necessarily imply that God goes contrary to Pharaoh’s desires. As if Pharaoh had been thinking the whole time that he was going to be kind and merciful to the Israelites and suddenly God came and drove the thought out of his mind and decided that He didn’t want that to happen. Now, even if God did change Pharaoh’s mind (even if you believe this is true), the scripture taken into context does not deal with salvation, but rather the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. God has a plan for Israel and delivering them out of Egypt is a part of His plan. This is a figure and representation of salvation in a sense. Egypt represents the world and God saves His children from the destruction of the rest of the world. But in no way does this scripture state that God determined the final eternal destiny of the individual known as Pharaoh by denying him salvation when He hardened his heart. Indeed, He may have, but not because He determined it, but rather because of Pharaoh’s own disbelief. But looking specifically at this Scripture, it just mentions that God hardened the already hardened heart of Pharaoh to not release the Israelites. No mention of Pharaoh’s ultimate salvation. <br /><br />Perhaps this is something that contributed to Pharaoh’s ultimate decision to believe or disbelieve. Unfortunately, we do not know what the rest of his life was like. In fact, God states that He would take this situation and use it to benefit not just the Israelites, but also the Egyptians so that they would also know that He is God. (Exodus 14:18)<br /><br /><br />The antichrists<br /><br />Here things get emotionally tricky because we think that God should not love someone that is anti-Christ. But the truth is that we were all against God (Matthew 12:30) and were His enemies (Romans 5:10), and hence anti-Christ. Just because a man claims to be Christ doesn’t mean that his sin is so much greater than our own that he cannot repent later on in life and surrender his life to Christ. Just because we didn’t claim to be Christ in word does not mean that we didn’t claim to be the god and lord of our lives in our actions. God offers salvation to all men that believe and repent. (Romans 5:18, Romans 10:9) God loves the antichrists because I know that He loves me.<br /><br /><br />I think that I have shown that the references to Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and the antichrists, do not support the doctrine of election when examined in context. God loves the individual. God hates their sin. Yes I believe that God loves Esau the individual, Pharaoh, and the antichrists spoken of in scripture. He doesn’t love their choices, but He does love the person. To use these verses to support election or that God doesn’t love these individuals I believe is an eisegesis of the text and does not take the entire context of the Bible in terms of salvation (soteriology) into question.<br /><br />Finally, you say, <I> And God could've chosen to love everyone had he wanted to. But he hasn't. Otherwise all would be saved. Or can God not secure the object of his affections? Is he like the nerdy stalker that the prom queen rejects in favor of the varsity quarterback?</I><br /><br />I would not say that God is the nerdy stalker that is rejected by the prom queen. But God reveals himself in a harsher light. He says that he is the loving husband of a prostitute and continually takes her back even though she sells her body to other men. He doesn’t force her back, but lures her (even though she has given up her body for other gains in the past) and she comes back (Hosea 2). I recommend you read the poem, ‘The Hound of Heaven.’ By Francis Thompson. Here’s a link to it: http://poetry.elcore.net/HoundOfHeavenInRtTGlossed.html<br />I love my wife, but there’s no way that I can ‘secure’ her love without people considering me a psychopath. Love implies action on the part of the one giving it. It is not passive and cannot be secured or captured unwillingly, and that is determined by God’s nature. <br /><br />I know this is a long comment. I really wanted to try to do it justice. If I’ve made a mistake, I hope you will lovingly point it out. And the truth is that I may have. But I’ve tried to write with good conscience and with reason. <br /><br />Berny, I love you in Christ. And I know you love my Father. It is easy for me to love anyone that genuinely loves my Father as you do. I can’t wait to hear your response if you have time to make one. If you don’t, please don’t feel bad. I don’t think anyone reading this expects anyone to respond to everything.<br /><br />RemyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-10819263995668528192008-07-04T16:11:00.002-04:002008-07-04T16:12:04.755-04:00Happy Independence Day!I just wanted to wish everyone a happy independence day. I hope you are all able to spend quality time with friends and family. God bless you.<br /><br />Remy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-1271563288676519672008-06-23T22:51:00.004-04:002008-06-23T23:13:00.116-04:00The doctrine of election: an honest and personal discussionIn following with Bill's anthropology post I've arrived once again to my disparagement with some Calvinistic doctrines. It is also possible that this is what Bill is leading up to. The following is not intended to put anyone down or propose an argument. I especially direct the previous sentence towards Berny whom all of you know him to be the most outspoken Calvinist on this blog. This is not directed towards him though he may reply if he wants to, or not. But I would like to hear what you guys have to say on the weaknesses and/or strength of my arguments which focus on the doctrine of election and irresistible grace. The post is long so if you don't have the time, then feel free to skip it or read it later.
<br />
<br /> <p class="MsoNormal">My issues with the doctrine of election:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>By definition justice demands proper retribution to the one who does wrong for the wrong committed<a style="" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a>. According to the book of Romans “…all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”<a style="" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> This is said in the context of not keeping the Law of Moses. Even before the Law was given sin reigned in the world because of Adam’s transgression.<a style="" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Hence, we all deserve the appropriate retribution for sin, which is death.<a style="" href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The second half of this story has been revealed through Christ whose righteousness He offers to all men in the free gift of justification onto life.<a style="" href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> It is God’s Grace that now reigns,<a style="" href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> and by definition cannot be earned. No man can stake a claim on grace; it is offered, not bought or earned.<a style="" href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>According to John G. Reisigner the doctrine of election is “the truth that God sovereignly chooses, or elects, certain individuals to be saved.”<a style="" href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Some argue that the doctrine of election is unjust because it grants grace to some and not others. Regarding this point R.C. Sproul makes mention of an interesting Bible passage in his book, “The Holiness of God.” He brings up the parable of the vineyard workers.<a style="" href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> In this parable Jesus brings attention to the reaction of the workers that were hired earliest. They thought it was unfair that some have only worked one hour and yet are receiving the same pay that they are. The landowner in the parable reminds them that He is being fair in giving them what he promised, only he chose those whom he hired later to be paid more for their labor and in that he was showing kindness<a style="" href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a>. R.C. Sproul’s passage goes on to remind us that it is fair that all are condemned. That is the deserved justice of all men. It is God’s grace to elect those whom He chooses unto justification. Where some are elected it is God’s grace; where some are not elected it is God’s justice.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The following arguments grant that it is not unjust when men are condemned to die according to their sins, but they do present that taken from a biblical perspective of men over the course of scriptural history the doctrine of election is not supported. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <ol style="margin-top: 0in;" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="">The hope for salvation was given to all men in Adam.<a style="" href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> This hope was for his and future generations of men. As sin reigns in all men because of Adam<a style="" href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a>, meaning because we are of Adam’s seed, hope similarly applies to all men because we are of Adam’s seed and counted Abraham’s seed to whom the promise of the sacrificial lamb was given of whom Isaac is a figure.<a style="" href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> If all men hope for salvation then all men who cry out to God for mercy God will grant it to them.<a style="" href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> To argue that some men (the non-elect) don’t hope for salvation is to argue that some men are not descendant of Adam. To argue that some men (the elect) hope for salvation in Christ and some hope (the non-elect) for salvation in other things is to argue that men (the elect) know of Christ and His work from birth; all hope for salvation in something and when it is presented to them in the form of Christ (the only true form of salvation) they are granted the choice to believe and have within their lifetime to make that choice. </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">Man is created in the image of God. This levels all men. Incorrectly saying that God grants the opportunity for some and not all to be redeemed belittles this great honor of being made in the image of God. It is because we were made in His image that Christ came<a style="" href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> to men. No other creature is given this honor and to no other creature does Christ come to in the manner that He does for mankind. It is because He loved us that He made us in His image and vice versa, and therefore expresses His love on the cross and grants adoption.<a style="" href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[16]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> All are made in His image. All can be redeemed by the work of Christ. (I would tend to agree more with the doctrine of election if it was to argue that the non-elect is not made in the image of God, but from my understanding this pursuit will find no fruition.) There is no difference between men (elect or non-elect) and all men can have the righteousness of God.<a style="" href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">Covenants in the OT, though mediated by individuals, applied to communities of people and in some cases all creatures as in the case of Noah and the flood.<a style="" href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[18]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> God makes covenants with groups of people through individuals. The doctrine of election implies that God makes covenants with individuals. On the other hand, God defines in scripture that the covenant He makes is with a group of people: those that believe.<a style="" href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[19]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">There are too many verses stating that anyone who believes may be saved. These verses also imply that all can believe.<a style="" href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[20]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">It does not reasonably lead from Scripture that God is more glorified when He alone makes decisions. Some of God’s first words to man grant him the choice between life and death<a style="" href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[21]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a>, and some of the last words in Scripture encourages man to make the same decision.<a style="" href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[22]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> God is glorified in giving men the opportunity to interact with Him and make the proper decision.</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">Saying that God elects us individually and causes us to irresistibly turn to Him, and later tack a claim that we still mysteriously make a decision sounds very much like we don’t really have a say in the matter and the word “mysteriously” was added to cover up the fact that it is a self-contradicting statement. I believe this “mysterious” assertion was made in light of the irrepressible evidence from scripture that man does have a say in the matter. John MacArthur makes a similar statement but uses the word “faith” instead of mystery (see Footnote).<a style="" href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[23]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> I’ll present a tongue-in-cheek example: If Obi-Wan Kenobi uses the Jedi mind trick to convince a group of stormtroopers to let him past a checkpoint one cannot say that the storm troopers had a choice in the matter. On the other hand, if I tell my son to clean up his room he has a choice and he can exercise it several ways. </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">The doctrine of election undermines the mystery of the Gentiles that Paul speaks of.<a style="" href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[24]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The Jews spent thousands of years wrongly believing that they alone were elect only to surprisingly find out that not only did they have the hope of salvation, but the rest of the world did as well.<a style="" href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[25]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> </li></ol> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <div style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
<br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <!--[endif]--> <div style="" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> "justice." <i>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</i>. Random House, Inc. 23 Jun. 2008. <dictionary.com href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice</a>>.</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 3:23</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 5:12-21</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 6:23</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 5:18</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 5:21</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> "grace." <i>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</i>. Random House, Inc. 23 Jun. 2008. <dictionary.com href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grace">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grace</a>>.</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> http://www.soundofgrace.com/sep97/elect1.htm</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Matthew 20:1-16</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Matthew 20:15</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Genesis 3:15</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 5:14</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 4:16</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Joel 2:32, Romans 10:13</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Hebrews 2:16</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[16]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 8:15</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 3:22</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[18]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12-14, Genesis 9:1-17, Genesis 17:1-21, Deuteronomy 29:1, Psalm 89, etc.</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn19"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[19]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 9:33</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn20"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[20]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> II Peter 3:9, John 3:15 & 16, Romans 10:9, John 11:26, John 12:46, Acts 10:43, Romans 9:33, I John 5:1</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn21"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[21]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Genesis 2:16-17</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn22"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[22]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Revelation 22:17</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn23"> <p><a style="" href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[23]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Those statements defining God’s sovereign choice of believers are not in the Bible to cause controversy, as if God’s election means sinners don’t make decisions. Election does not exclude human responsibility or the necessity of each person to respond to the gospel by faith. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Admittedly <u>the two concepts don’t <i>seem</i> to go together</u>. However, both are true separately, and <u>we must accept them both by faith</u>. You may not understand it, but rest assured—it’s fully reconciled in the mind of God. {Emphasis added}</span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn24"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[24]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 11:25</p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn25"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[25]<!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Romans 11</p> </div> </div>
<br />"Lord, may this post not cause any division or dissension within the body of your bride however small a part of it we represent. May it bring edification through interpersonal relationships and discussion, and may these things bring us closer to You. May no one find offense in it. I love you Lord and I know that many of those that read this blog do to. Blessed be You Name forever, for You know all things. Teach me what You want me to know and let me be content with what You don't want me to know."
<br />
<br />Seeking to walk in Christ's love by the power of the Holy Spirit,
<br />Remy.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-22125138157882690812008-06-19T15:33:00.003-04:002009-03-28T13:08:45.262-04:00What does it mean to be human?<dl id="comments-block"><dt class="comment-author blogger-comment-icon" id="c8709361526740791524"><a href="profile/17336515900322586967" rel="nofollow">Bill Harvelle</a> said... </dt><dd class="comment-body"> <p>Hello again and good morning. I want to wish a belated Father’s Day to any father here, and especially to Freddy and Remy. Love is patient and kind and I’m going to try my best to keep my thoughts succinct and all is at peace with Berny, who I do respect and care for as a brother. He is a gentleman. May God bless the peacemakers here.<br /><br />I would like to post a synthesis for comments, discussion, critique and debate. It deals with theological anthropology, a topic of which we were discussing doing, at least Berny and myself. It asks the question from reason illuminated by faith “what does it mean to be human”? My hope in this post is to present what I believe the Old Testament expresses as its theological-anthropological picture of man. Then, if anyone wishes, they can comment and/or put forward their Biblical anthropologies. After it is worked over perhaps then I could post my New Testament continuation, if that’s okay. Working through early Christianity to the Modern periods, we could then move to the subjects of nature, grace, and sin. This is how I would like to continue in this, what I believe, has been a fruitful and lively exchange.<br /><br />Let’s begin with Sacred Scripture; let’s start with the Old Testament. The Bible, from the Priest (e.g., Gen 1:1-2:4a), views “human” as a male/female creature in the Image and Likeness of Elohim (see Gen 1:26-27). “Human” is seen as interpersonal communion: family. “Human” for Hebrew thought is not individualistic, but communal.<br /><br />The Bible, from the Yahwist (e.g., Gen 2:4bff), views the human person as a creature of Yahweh Elohim and as an animated body (Gen 2:7). The word that designates “man/woman” in the Old Testament, Adam, enforces the concept of the human person as animated body. The word for dust in Hebrew is adamah and the etymological connection is crucial. The Old Testament writers knew nothing of Medieval Scholastic philosophy or Cartesian dualism (a philosophy which it would oppose); they present the human person as an animated body. To them we are not composite beings, made of body and soul as two separate parts. The Old Testament does not contrast soul and flesh. Unlike the Greeks, who look upon a human person as an incarnated spirit, the Hebrews regarded the human person as an animated body. This is CRUCIAL: according to the Old Testament worldview, we do not HAVE a mind and a body; we ARE mind and body.<br /><br />What does it mean if human existence is that of an animated body? First, it means that human existence is coexistence—our utter bodiliness is the relationship we have with one another (Lev 19:18; Lev 19:9-18, 34; Lev 25:35-38; Amos 5:23-24, 8:4-6; Is 3:13-15) and this is highlighted in a special way in the sexual relationship where human persons are most deeply themselves (Gen 1:27, 2:18, 24, 4:1). Second, it means that human existence—at once dependant on God and interdependent in relationship with others—is therefore responsible existence (yet it need not be one of fear and drudgery; Gen 2:15-17; 1 Kgs 4:20; Ps 43:4). Third, human existence is sinful existence only inasmuch as it is responsible existence (there is no fully developed notion of Original Sin in the Old Testament yet human persons are seen as proud and closed to the Call of God and the cry of neighbor; Gen 8:21; Ps 2, 143). Genesis 3-11 and elsewhere the Old Testament does indeed depict sin as something breaking out into the world harming both the individual sinner and history itself, yet consciousness of sin’s damage to history deepens as history unfolds (Jer 13:23). Fourth, human existence is therefore hope-filled existence; hopes of a savior and salvation, for the fulfillment of the promises of new life in the new covenant (Gen 1:1, 3:15; Jer 31:31-34).<br /><br />Because of the bodiliness of human existence, the Old Testament expresses ultimate salvation in a bodily manner; i.e., as the resurrection of the body (Is 26:19; Dan 12:2-3; 2 Macc 7:14 [even if you don’t accept this as canonical, it dates from over 150 BC and is representative of Jewish thought at that time]). The idea of immortality of the soul is not developed in the Old Testament. The notion of soul immortality is alien to the anthropology as presented by the Old Testament; it is related to Greek philosophy (which understands human person as incarnated spirit).<br /><br />So let’s summarize Old Testament thought on human existence: one, it is theological: man/woman is a creature made as familial in the Image and Likeness of God; two, a human person is an animated body with no separation between mind and body; three, it is a reality dependant on God and coexistent with others; four, it is communal, and best expressed in the sexual relationship; five, it is an historical reality fraught with challenge—it is responsible, sinful, and hope-filled; six, ultimate salvation consists of the hope in the resurrection of the body; seven, the immortality of the soul is not speculated on or developed in the Old Testament—in ancient Semitic thought, mind, heart and body are seen as being utterly one and without duality<br /><br />Before moving onto the New Testament I would like to see your thoughts. Are my sources and I right here? What do you think? What are the ramifications? If my sources and I are incorrect, please, where and how? Did I miss anything? How does this view on human existence affect prayer and faith? How would faith be expressed in this reality?<br /><br />I look forward to hearing your responses.</p> </dd></dl>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-64686512424772353612008-06-18T23:48:00.005-04:002008-06-19T00:08:16.161-04:00Welcome friends! Add new topics here...Hi guys (and gals if there are any of you out there)! I wanted to set up another post where we can add new topics or discuss new things. As you've noticed I try to do this every once in a while so that we don't have to continue writing on different subjects in old entries. I'm still not sure if this is the best way, but it's what I can come up with. If you have any other ideas feel free to let me or Freddy know. Also, if you want your particular post as a separate entry just leave me a note at the end or at the beginning (I read all the posts...eventually) saying something like "Hey Remy can you make this post an entry of its own?" and I will. Make sure that you leave me a title for your entry.<br /><br />And by the way, hi Joel! I'm glad to see you here, as Freddy was too. I liked the clarification/discussion that went on between you and Berny. I also thought that it might be edifying to discuss some of the pros and cons of street evangelism. It's funny that the subject comes up because I was asked to share a small teaching next month and I think that the topic God seems to be leading me towards is 'evangelism as a lifestyle.' The title I really wanted was something more like 'Christianity is abiding in Christ and evangelism is an outworking of that,' but it didn't seem pragmatic. The focus is more on everyday encounters with people you know rather than one-night-only type preaching. I think that both are important to the body.<br /><br />What do you guys think about this?<br /><br />P.S. Sirac says hello. Hey Sirac!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3863482066444797629.post-51710176210515277802008-06-15T14:00:00.002-04:002008-06-15T14:05:50.709-04:00Happy Father's Day!Let's honor the Ultimate Father this day who loved us so much He sent His only begotten son to redeem us and make us children with Him.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Romans 8:15</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;" id="en-NIV-28117" class="sup"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1