A Brief and Candid Conversation About Doubt

I have a good friend that has been seriously struggling with his faith lately (perhaps even losing it). Recently he posted an article entitled, "Empty: Some observations from Genesis," which contains some critical remarks on the narrative found in Genesis 3. With his gracious permission, I have included his post, as well as much of the candid conversation that we had over the matter. We hope that this might be of some help for others who are wrestling with doubt.

My Friend

I spoke with a good friend earlier in the week about who/Who was ultimately responsible for my salvation from sin. I have not come to any kind of conclusion as to the truthfulness of Christianity, or any other major religion for that matter. Theologically speaking, however, I should be able to reason my way to an answer to the above question. First and foremost, the issue at hand is not who/Who saves me, but rather, "Why do I need saving?” Reading through the first few chapters of Genesis lead me to several observations.

Apparently, there were several choices made that eventually led to eating the forbidden fruit and receiving the knowledge of good and evil. I feel the final choice to eat of the fruit, to be the original sin. It is a sin-filled act because it went against a direct order from God. Therefore, up until the point of actually committing the act of sin, Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil. God made it clear to Adam that he would die after eating said fruit. He did not say that his choosing to eat the fruit would be sinful in any way. After all, Adam had no knowledge of sin. I might be able to assume that Adam knew death was not something to be wished for. If that was the case, his only motivation to not eat the fruit would have had nothing to do with the fact that it was sinful. It would have had everything to do with Adam fearing death. Eve is in a similar situation, being told that eating of that tree would bring about death. Essentially, God is telling them not to eat of the fruit because death is bad, not because a violation of His law is sinful.

My next observation is towards the condition of nakedness. Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness initially. It could be that they, not possessing the knowledge of good and evil, did not attribute public nakedness to be either something that was good or evil. They were very likely indifferent to the matter. If they felt the need to cover themselves with fig leaves after the original sin, then the state of being naked before God is evil. Am I to believe that God was letting Adam and Eve partake in a form of bliss that, under the umbrella of good and evil, would require fig leaves? All I have to go by is that before eating of the fruit, their nakedness was embraced, and after the fruit was consumed, it was not. I cannot accept that this God would operate under the cliché, "Ignorance is bliss". One can only begin to imagine the things Adam and Eve might have done should they not have eaten the fruit.

My third observation is that humans are not the only species that took a beating because of Adam and Eve's foul up. Apparently, (and don't let them know, they could harbor bad feelings) serpents were punished. "You [are] cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life." Genesis 3:14. I am sorry, I had to joke a little there; this whole topic is becoming rather serious. All joking aside however, the serpent received punishment for his act of deceit. This leads me to believe that God understood it was not exclusively Adam or Eve's fault. If humans today are under God's wrath, should they not repent, they (we) are paying a great price for something that is not entirely our fault. Actually, it is even more not our fault since we are generations removed from Adam and Eve. Serpents should face a fate far more worse than we will, but it seems that serpents these days do what they are going to do, without trying to bring religion into the mix. They eat, they sleep, they reproduce and they die. They do not seem to be so interested in saving themselves.

Next, it appears that God conveniently left out the whole Tree of Life bit. Adam was on a 'Need to know' basis and, well, he did not need to know. For those who do not know, this tree would give the consumer eternal life. "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- Geneis 3:22. Now, if you were reading Genesis from beginning to end, you might, like me, be led to believe that Adam and Eve were already going to live forever. If not, then you must accept that when God told Adam that he would surely die if he ate of the fruit, Adam would have thought, "...well, I am going to die anyway, so WTF." Or, Adam was ignorant to his own finite existence, in which case, is just cruel. So Adam was ignorant, he was reminded of something he already knew, or he was an eternal being already. I doubt the latter, otherwise, why have a Tree of Life. The tree of life was around before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.

So here I am today, and there you are. Theologically speaking, we exist now, but when we die, we face eternal joy or eternal damnation. If I want eternal joy, I am to repent of my sin and accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If I want eternal damnation, well, I do not have to even want it. Apparently, that is the default condition. So, to come back to my original question, I need saving because of someone else’s' foul up. They only fouled up because of the deceit of the serpent. They had no filter by which to determine an act as sinful any more than a child is able to determine the nature of Grand Theft Auto as being bad or sinful. It seems that the early chapters of Genesis are a comedy of errors, the least of which were Adam and Eve's fault. I cannot reasonably accept Genesis in a literal way. Even if I could, I should not be held responsible for someone else's actions. If I indeed have an eternal spirit, it is worth much more, and should have no bearing on the mistakes of the first humans.

Jake

Hey my friend, I saw your post advertized on FB. I’m going to offer my critique and some candid words on the back end. I do so out of love for you my friend. Please excuse spelling and grammatical mistakes, as you will find many.

Critique

You suggest that the text teaches that Adam and Eve (‘A&E’ from here on out) had no moral sense, that “they did not know the difference between good and evil,” perhaps possessing a blissful ignorance. I think that you derive that from vss. 5, 7, and 22. I think however that this interpretation is simplistic for the following reason:

•“Knowledge” is a multifaceted concept in Hebraic thought. To know x, may involve conceptual and experiential dimensions. I may know about sex after Sex Ed, but its when I have it that I know about sex. Adam is said to “know” his wife, meaning a level of intimacy, not the acquisition of information not previously possessed. So, it is possible that Adam and Eve, though they had a knowledge of right and wrong in one way, did not have it in another (theory and experience perhaps). This fits well with the passage.

•In the previous two chapters man is marked with the imago dei (the image of God), by which man, although possessing many similarities with the animal world, is raised in dignity and differentiated by attributes not possessed by the rest of the animal kingdom in such heightened degree. One key demarcation is morality.

•If morality meant nothing to A & E like “;f;eeffee;;;” means nothing to us, then the narrative of Genesis 3 doesn’t make sense at all. Vs.2, “You shall not eat from any tree…?” Eve, if ignorant of morality proper, should have responded, “What do you mean by “shall not…”. Moral “oughtness” would be as meaningless as chicken scratches. And yet Eve relays enough conviction about right and wrong to waver at the serpent’s suggestions (vs.2). When God doles out particular punishments, he chides Adam for disobeying what he had “commanded” him (vs.17). Clearly, they were moral beings knowing the command of God, and yet spurned it at the suggestion of enlightenment.

•Consider that it was the serpent that said, “For God knows that in the day that you eat it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (vs.5). Your premise presupposes a certain interpretation of the serpent (taking him at face value). Remember, he is filled with half-truths, equivocations, and conflations. The point of the narrative is that the serpent was deceptive in this. Even in verse 22, we might take God’s statement to be bit of irony, “Behold” after stripped of their dignity, spoiled with sin, “man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” As if to say, “you listened to the serpent because of the promise of exaltation to God-like status (which was the very cause of Satan’s fall himself – Isaiah 14:14; Ezek 28:2), and instead of rising, you’ve fallen in shame.”

•A & E certainly knew that partaking of the fruit of that particular tree was sinful. What made their transgression especially heinous was due to considerations like these: (1) God made obedience so easy: what a light burden, that in the midst of such abundance, God should mark one as the test of faithfulness. The easier the obedience, the greater the punishment when there is disobedience. (2) Their action was a defiance of God’s authority so as to establish their own. Pride, the undue exaltation of a person, was the first sin. (3) They forfeited their dominion to a lesser creature, God having established A& E to be vice-regents over all creatures, even the supernatural.

As to the “shame” of nakedness, I also think your treatment is too simple and unfair to the text. Upon sinning, A & E knew they were naked and felt shame. The passage doesn’t mean to communicate that A & E didn’t recognize that one had an outy and the other an inny. Or that when they ate, they said, “Oh &$#&, I thought I had been wearing clothes this whole time.” Again, you’re not appreciating the word “knowledge.”

I particularly like Augustine’s treatment of this passage. He gives a very plausible explanation that when A & E refused to have God as their sovereign, God repaid the compliment by taking away A & E’s sovereignty over their bodies. This meant that appetites that were under their control were no longer under the power of their wills, one appetite being the sexual appetite (which the text hints at). Our inability to master our sexuality is a reminder of a forfeited dominion: ours under God’s and over creation (including our bodies).

You say, “it appears that God conveniently left out the whole Tree of Life bit.” I don’t think you are being fair to the text. This tree was a pledge of that immortal life with which obedience should be rewarded. With his disobedience, he lost all claim to this tree; and therefore, that he might not eat of it or delude himself with the idea that eating of it would restore what he had forfeited, the Lord sent him forth from the garden.

As to moral culpability, I think it is very clear from the text that the fall wasn’t exclusively laid at the feet of A & E, as is evidenced by the punishments doled out to each offender in the crime. As to how we are held responsible, keep in mind that Scripture teaches that A & E do have a greater responsibility before God because of their position as head of the human race and the how easy God made righteousness for them. With that said, Scripture also teaches that they are the fountain of humanity, and we are the stream. If the fountain is corrupt, so is the stream. John Locke, Jonathan Edwards, and many others have rightly argued that original sin is one of the most empirically verifiable doctrines. If morality means anything and “oughtness” should govern humanity, we desperately fall short of it. And though in one sense we clearly see this is a default position of our nature, and yet if we take any particular action where we sinned, our willful involvement in that activity should move a person to be careful about labels of determinism and fatalism.

I’m sympathetic to the difficulty of feeling like you’re punished for the sin of another. I think that our Western obsession with individualism robs vicarious realities from our worldview. We know nothing of the Hebraic and Eastern concepts of solidarity, oneness, and vicariousness. It may sound strange to your ears, it hasn’t sounded strange to countless cultures. This is why the Hebrews, with great joy, looked for a second Adam whose obedience to God would be counted to them as righteousness.

A Candid Assessment

Let me end with a few observations on your handling of the text. You start out your blog talking about theologically reasoning to a conclusion, indicating objectivity in your pursuit. You end your blog by saying “I cannot reasonably accept Genesis in a literal way.”

My friend, with all due respect, you have been extremely casual with your handling of this passage; you have not been reasonable. I would suspect that you consulted no commentaries or theological works on this passage and the doctrine of original sin (e.g., Edwards, In Defense of the Doctrine of Original Sin). I sensed no objectivity or principle of charity with which the critical thinking strives after. To be honest, it seems like you are emoting and calling it reason. This is all a bad foundation for concluding “I cannot accept Genesis in a literal way…” Make sure that your premises support your conclusions.

My friend, I know you are struggling with your faith. I understand that. But I sense that your doubt is bending your use of reason and critical thinking. I’m not saying that a person using their reason will come to my conclusions, but what I’m say is that they wouldn’t make the points you did. May I encourage you, start doubting your doubting a little more. The more you suspect your own reasoning, the better. It will cause your conclusions to be crisper and forceful. Step outside of your observations and lean on other folks who have wrestled with concepts that you never will and can. Use the fruit of their labor so that you won’t have to strive in vain.

Your friend who is for you.

Jake

My Friend

Hello Jake,

While I am going to really think about what you wrote, I do not feel it necessary to try to disagree with it. In my doubts, I have found that I tend to question everything. While I will not just take what you wrote at face value, I do not see the point in me trying to dissect the text anymore than you already have for me. You see, I approached the text, as you said, casually. This allowed me to possibly find something that was never there to begin with. Either way, your response brought up an important point. I think it is safe to say that even some of the most 'on fire' Christians might not even consider in their lifetime the casual, questionable things I saw in Genesis. That is great for them, but someone like me who is seriously doubting, and even more, lacking the theological sense that I feel you have, how am I suppose to read the text and see the same thing you do? How am I suppose to be aware of all the Hebraic words and or what they were really trying to say. I had no idea how Hebrew culture affected their literature or they way they wrote. I struggle with the idea that God uses literature to reveal Himself to us. People look at the Bible and come up with all sorts of interpretations and translations. Would not God, in wanting to reach the masses use a method of revelation that is common to all people, something they can all understand? Especially considering all the Gentiles that He knew would come. We do not grow up with the dedication to scripture as Jews have and still do. I use to read Christian apologetic, and feel convinced that Christianity was the right way. Now that I read Non-Christian material, I feel just as convinced...and it is maddening I tell you!! I admire you for your commitment to Christ, and I think deep down, I envy that passion. Does not God, if He is, know that all He would need to do for me to believe again and serve Him is "X". If He would just do that, I would be much more of an effective tool for His Will, than I am now, wallowing around in doubt. This is truly not what I thought my life would be turning out like. Take care, and thank you again for your openness.

Jake

I appreciate your honesty and humility. Perhaps God could have used something other than literature to communicate, but it seems like we're the kinds of creatures that communicate with words. Once you string a bunch of words together and write them down, you have literature and all of the elements involved (including culture, grammar, syntax, semantics, interpretation). Language is common to all people, and therefore a book is a sufficient option to communicate. Granted, the book is set in different cultural milieus, but I don't think that the cultural elements eclipse the fundamental message that God wants people to hear (though having a rich understanding of these cultural dimensions will give you a richer understanding of the fundamental message).

"Does not God, if He is, know that all He would need to do for me to believe again and serve Him is "X"."

I wonder about this statement. What if you are wrong. What if, even though God does "x" for you, you still wouldn't believe (e.g. Matthew 16:1-4). Or, what if God doesn't want "x" to be that thing without which you won't believe? Put differently, what if God doesn't want you to believe in him on that particular basis (though otherwise it is not an irrelevant component for belief)?

As I mentioned before, I think there's something not right with the standard that you have set for believing Christianity. I can't put my finger on it right now, but maybe its one of these: (1) It would seem to make "belief" into something different. I don't have "faith" or "hope" that circles are round. That's just a fact imposed on me. There's no faith-like virtue in this. If God were something as empirical as a oxygen, it seems to undercut something important about the pursuit of God by man. (2) I suspect that the standard of seeing or touching would undercut a lot of precious things we believe in the life (e.g. love, desire, imagination), as well as ways we know (e.g. intuition). (3) A psychologist could always step in and question the most stark and clear "displays" of God as being a hallucination, a dream, or a psychotic fit (how many people have seen divine personages at Patton State Hospital). (4) A philosopher will say that you can never step outside of your 5 senses to see whether or not your 5 senses are reliable. And so if you did have some type of perception of God (visual and audio), you can't be justified in this belief without assuming the reliability of your senses, which is a unjustified assumption.

I appreciate your openness.

Jake

Before You Judge Another, Ask Yourself...

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)

Contrary to how many interpret this passage, judgment isn't forbidden in Scripture, bad judgments are. “First take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers” (Matt 7:5). A few verses later, we are commanded to judge the actions of putative prophets (7:15-20) to determine their spiritual condition. In the law, to refrain from pointing out sin in others is an act of hatred: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev 19:17). Which is to say true friends will point out the junk in our lives out of concern for us. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). The Psalmist invites such scrutiny in his own life as he realizes that it’s for his own good. “Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; It is oil upon the head; Do not let my head refuse it, For still my prayer is against their wicked deeds” (Psalm 141:5). Because Paul loved Peter and the church, he rebuked him openly (Gal 2:11). If a church loves their pastors, they’ll rebuke those pastors (1 Tim. 5:20). If a pastor loves his church, he will rebuke the church (2 Tim 4:2).

So judgment (by which Scripture means assessing and confronting moral failure in the lives of people) is not only permissible in Scripture, it’s commanded. Refraining from judgment is bad. However, Jesus warns sternly about hypocritical judgment and indicates the ease with which we can exaggerate the faults of others and minimize our own. Therefore, before you confront another, ask yourself these questions to determine whether your judgment will be right or wrong:

• Am I judging out of genuine concern and passion for God's glory, or because I'm concerned about my own?
• Deep down, do I judge another's sin to feel better about myself?
• Am I really seeking the good of the person I pass judgment on?
• Have I labored in prayer and Bible study to ensure that my judgment is correct?
• Have I scrutinized my failings with the same intensity that I have another’s?
• Do I respond to another's judgment in the way I expect others to respond to mine?
• Am I as quick to point out goodness in others as I have been to point out their faults?
• Am I quick to see and admit fault in my best actions?
• Am I strategic in how I address wrong, seeking God for the best way to effect restoration?
• I’m I broken over my brother’s faults?

Paul’s sums the heart, approach, and execution of moral confrontation in Galatians:

Galatians 6:1-4 “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.

Feasting on the Will of God (Matthew 4:3&4)

by JM

"If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread" (Matthew 4:3).

Here's another way of capturing the temptation: "since you have the power and position of deity (being co-equal and co-majestic with the Father), shortcut this period of dedication to the Father." "Jesus, there's no need for complete surrender to the Father, partial obedience will do. It's legal: you're the son of God."

Jesus answered and said,

"it is written, man shall not live on bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Jesus is the Son of God. This was not at issue in the temptation. The passage would be better rendered, "Since you are the Son of God, command...." Satan's tactic was to eclipse Jesus' humanity with his divinity, and therefore to undermine Christ's identification and mediation for a fallen humanity (this is why a thousand heresies seek to darken the relationship of Christ's divine nature and human nature). As Son of God, Jesus needed no fasting, no testing, no tempting. But as Son of Man, he must learn obedience through the things which he has suffered.

Our second Adam must not live on bread alone, but every word of God. Which is to say, given the options of (1) excercising his authority in such a way that fails to fully acknowledge the Father as a man, or (2) relinquishing the power and the comfort of Sonship so as to maintain a complete and undiluted devotion, Jesus declares he'll always choose the later.

"Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me...I have come to do your will of God" (Hebrews 10:5-9)

Jesus says in so many words, "I will go hungry, undergo demonic assault, experience mockings, scourgings, crucifixition, and death if it means staying true to the Father, because doing the will of God is my ulitmate food, affirmation, comfort, glory, and life."

Consider the application: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Philippians 2:4).

Do you find great delight, as Jesus did, in obedience to God even when such obedience may mean a fasting from your will and comfort (which may be legal and moral in certain contexts)? Do you find such great delight in God's Will that even when disobedience is easy and pleasurable and within hand's reach, yet you choose the fast? This question is remarkably profound, especially in light of the reference Jesus uses: Deuteronomy 8:3 -

"He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD."

Notice that the Israelites' fast was compelled by God. God eliminated the possibility of the Jews eating anything except Manna (a type of Jesus - John 6) and drinking from anything except the rock (another type of Jesus - 1 Cor. 10:4).

Why the compulsion? Why the elimination of "freedom?"

Because there was no significant hunger for God resident within His people that would compel them to eat manna, and manna only, even should quail sweep through the camp in great abudance (consider that even when God did send quail, this was done out of judgment and not mercy). Given the option of quail, they'll abandon manna everytime. Given the option of sin or Christ, some will choose sin every time. In short, they had no true freedom. Their appetites were shackled by sin.

Consequently, God enforces limitations on the Jews until they recognize such limitations to be liberations; until they realize that the greater glory is seen when a man or a woman enforces these limitations on themselves rather than God giving no other choice. Like the Son of Man who, although perfectly within his right to assert his divine nature, refuses to exercise that right because of how it would have undermined the Father. The God/man hungered for the Father's glory more than his own, even though such a regard would cause unimaginable physical and spiritual angst.

Do you, as me, desire for that heaven-born appetite that will forgo all earthly pleasures should they even hint towards undermining the all-sufficiency of the Father? Do you, as me, find the ancient Israelite lurking within your heart, quick to hand Jesus over for thirty piece of silver and abandon manna at the sound of rustling feathers in the distance? Let's be quicker to embrace the pain of abstention at the slightest hint of sin than we have been to embrace sin at the slightest hint of pleasure. May God match our appetites with his glory.

Selah

Jake

'cliff notes on theology' continued: the discussion

The following discussion was generated after a posting called "Cliff Notes of Theology: Why are these books in the Bible and not others?"

Jeremiah

Interestingly the "extra" books have been a part of the Septuigant from the beginning, and have been considered canonical since the before late 4th century, when the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. References in Acts, and Jude are made to passages found in Books considered apochraphal by Protestants. As I have heard it explained, Luther wanted to match the Masoretic canon, which was only 39 books, so he threw out the "extras". Rome considered them Extra-canonical before Trent, but the Eastern Orthodox have always called them Canon.

Scott

I think, beyond traditional recognition, a great part of the determination of canonization, was how the writings in question bore consistency with the rest of Scripture, against which, they fell short.

Jake

I'm aware of the inclusion of the extra books in the Septuagint, but I guess that raises the question, Was the inclusion meant to indicate canonicity? Often helpful books were appended to translations in the way that notes are appended to study bibles or commentaries are to Bible software. I've heard of bibles distributed early in the church to which was attached the epistle of clement, the shepherd of hermes..without indicated the inspiration of these works. So, were the Alexandrians attempting to define or redefine the canon, or offer a helpful translation? It might be helpful to consider how the Jews as a larger religious community regarded these writings. I think the evidence is pretty strong that they considered their 22books (our 39) as the totality of OT canon (e.g. Jamnia). And so we can interpret their inclusion of these "extras" as helpful, but not necessarily inspired. This is also confirmed by early church fathers like Jerome, Cyril, Origen...

Yvonna

I thought the extra books were considered helpful, but not God breathed or God inspired. Please correct me if I am wrong Pastor Jake.

Jeremiah

Not all of the earliest Church Fathers (Origen not being considered a "father" by the East in later centuries) agreed on the same Canon. It wasn't until nearly the end of the 4th century that we see a final consensus on the canon. I believe the East has, since that time, considered the extras of the OT Canon as canon.

The other thing to consider, in discussing the Eastern Orthodox, is the fact that Holy Tradition is considered an equal source of Apostolic Doctrine as the Scriptures. The Traditions of the Apostles were first passed down and preserved orally before the Epistles and Gospels (then referred to as memoirs by early Fathers) began to circulate. In other words, the Church itself is the "pillar and ground of truth", with Scripture and Tradition as a "one-two punch" of its authority, both have their authorship in the Holy Spirit.

I guess to get to my point, The Orthodox Church considers them canon, so for them, that ends the discussion. Not that they check their minds at the door, because they have good scholarship to back up their claims too.

Jake

Bonnie, I think you're right.

Jeremiah, I think I'm safe in saying that the vast majority of early fathers held to the canon held by the vast majority of Jews (which considered the apocryphal books apocryphal). I see your point about the view of authority subscribed to by the O.C. (cool abbreviation), but I think the question becomes, "Do they have a particular tradition on the content of the canon that can be traced back to apostolic origins?" If so, what? This is also a relevant question for our Roman Catholic brothers who affirm doctrine x to be true because it can be traced to tradition rather to Scripture. Unfortunately, when pressed, they often retreat from tradition to the Church Magisterium. If you're interested, I wrote an article sometime back defending sola scriptura given the backdrop of RC claims related to authority. I spend some time looking at their argument from tradition. Here's the link: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/SurprisedbyWhat.html

Julio

I read the blog. Jake, good stuff. I like the length of the argument. Very pithy and to the point. I wish I had some more time to evaluate the Church Fathers you mentioned. I'm still working through Shelly's Church History in Plain Language.

Jeremiah

The traditions of the O.C. (I'll borrow your abbreviation) do in fact have their origins in the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude has accounts taken from the books in question. The history recounted by Stephen before his martyrdom in Acts is taken from Jewish tradition AND scripture. The fact is that we don't have obvious statements made by the Apostles about which books they deemed Scripture.

The other thing (and I pointed this out in my last statement) the Orthodox do not put Tradition and Scripture in opposition to one another. Scripture was born of the Traditions of the Church. They go hand in hand, and are both birthed of the Holy Spirit. You will not find a knowledge Orthodox who uses the terms Scripture and Tradition in an either/or context. They are always both/and. The question of authority lies in the Church itself, not in a magisterium.

Unfortunately for Rome, they separated themselves from the East nearly 1000 years ago. Having departed from Orthodoxy, they have added doctrine and tradition that are not Apostolic, which is why there was a Reformation.

Jake

I'm not sure I get how an apostle quoting from extra-canonical material should lead us to affirm that the traditions of the O.C. do in fact have their origins in the Apostles. Firstly, we still have to investigate whether there is good evidence that any particular tradition is in fact traced to an apostle (similar to the rigorous science of High Criticism for NT books). Secondly, even if we did discover some tradition, the question is whether this tradition authoritative. Just because an apostle said x, doesn't of necessity mean that x is inspired. He may have quoted from his grocery list or communicated compromise (Peter and the Judaizers). Properly speaking, the "writings" are always inspired, not the authors (2Tim 3:16-17). Thirdly, any tradition should be consistent with Scripture, otherwise Paul's call to Christians to test his message by Scripture would have been misdirected. Even Jude's citation of Enoch where the Lord is coming with is saints isn't a novelty. Fourthly, a inspired writer quoting from a source and including it in his writings does not mean that the source is inspired proper (as in, Titus 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.").

I would argue that the church wields divine authority to the extent that it handles the word of God properly. Officers of the church have authority, but when its in opposition with the Vox Dei, they seize to wield divine authority. This tells me that church authority is derivative and therefore secondary to Scripture

Jeremiah

The Apostles' quotations were just an example, although they do not prove conclusively in themselves the canonicity of a text. I have heard a Biblical scholar state that it is believed by some that the Canon of even the OT was not finalized until after the 1st century. This same scholar says the "extra canonical books" were not thrown out by the Jews until much later, and was in response to the Christian use of Scripture to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Her name is Eugenia Constantinou of the University of San Diego.

On the statement about authority, to say it is derivative creates a dichotomy that was never there in the early Church. The New Testament was written by the Church, and came from the Church (as it was established by the Apostles). Jesus, in sending the Holy Spirit, began a community called the Church. This same Holy Spirit guided the writing of the NT, and also guided the assembling of the NT by the Church. Remember, it was the Church which decided which books were in or out. Where was their authority? The guidance of the Holy Spirit through Tradition, prayer, conciliarity, the OT, Apostolic succession, among other things. This is all pre-Schism between East and West.

Authority, Tradition and Scripture work in unison in the life of the Church. Not wielded by one person as in the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox view of authority is in stark contrast to anything Protestants are willing to acknowledge, so we don't need to argue our points on that.

I enjoy discussing these issues, as they bring up very many good points.

Jake

I’m enjoying the discussion also. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at the history behind canonization. I would venture to say that books were often formally accepted far after they had been practically accepted. To illustrate, its like when my wife and I received certain legal documentation identifying the citizenship of our children sometime after they were born. They were citizens prior to this formalization, being recognized as such upon birth, and this was conveyed in a formal way through documentation (I’m sure there’s a better analogy – perhaps paying off a car and waiting to receive the title…)

I don’t think your observations about the relationship of church and scripture establish your offered confusion of the two (confusion of authority). The church was instrumental in the writing of Scripture, but so was the east wind in spitting the red sea, and Babylon in executing God’s judgment. An instrument of some effect should not be viewed as equally important as what it produces. For example, medicine is instrumental in health, but it’s not equal in importance to health. In fact the value of medicine is derivative from health. If no one could get healthy or sick, medicine ceases to be important. Note also that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 refer to both the human agents of inspiration and the product of inspiration. There is no hint in these passages of authority being conferred upon the human authors due to their role in inspiration. The conclusion of both passages is that Scripture is binding, not that the church (or a writer) is binding.

These remarks also apply to the process whereby the church discovered (not ‘decided’) which books were in and out. Did the church have authority? Yes. If the church formally recognizes canon by her authority, then does that make her authority on par with Scripture? No. If a man is commissioned by a king to discover a new land (let’s say America) and finds it, he is still no king of this land, nor any greater in authority after the discovery. So it is with the church and scripture. I affirm that the Holy Spirit providentially guided a fallible church to recognize infallible scripture, to which she must constantly subject all her enterprises.

I feel pretty confident (from these considerations and numerous passages) in affirming that there is a distinction between church and scripture, and that the authority of the church is derivative from God’s word.

Julio

Wow... right on. I couldn't agree more with @Jake.

Solomon

Go Maccabees!

Joshua

Such a good discussion. I've been enjoying the read. When I first brought this question about cannon to you Jake I was mostly drawn by not understanding why some of the histories of Gods peoples were called divine but others for no other reason I can understand are omitted. (Maccabees for instance.) Also I remember reading in one of the epistles Paul makes reference to another letter he wrote to another church that is not found in the scripture. (I'm drawing a blank on referencing this one, it's after 3 AM.) I'm often finding myself craving more of the stories of how the apostles lived, led and taught Christs ways.

As for what I know, it bears more questions. I know that you don't need the whole thing for salvation. I haven't been redeemed by my reading of the scripture. I still haven't read the whole thing yet I'm still saved. Also the Ethiopian ruler who was reading from Isaiah had a seemingly brief exposure to much scripture. It seems likely also that some of the early church had other teachings that were divinely inspired and obviously beneficial to their edification being that they were directly under the leadership to those authoritative ones, the apostles. Ask most Christians to name all 12 and they won't be able to. Most of the apostles seem to have nearly no effect on the church because if they did write, then it obviously wasn't inspired enough to last to where it matters to me.

I just get this impression that what we have is enough even though there could be (and maybe was) more that lack nothing in legitimacy. But I wonder all the more about the staunch "these 66, no more, no less" stance.

Jake

Josh, great observations. I was reminded as I read your statements of John's statement at the end of his gospel where he said that If all of what Jesus said and did were recorded, the libraries of the world could not contain them (21:25). Of course this is hyperbole, but the point is that writings are not nearly exhaustive, which may clue us in as to why God limited what was inspired (the human limitation to handle large amounts of data in a responsible and edifying way). Maybe.

I think the "no more no less" stance should refer to the topic of authority. So I would say that the 66 books are the highest authority in the church, no more and no less. Yet I would also insist that there are derivative forms of authority (church government; teachers, both ancient and contemporary) that should be consulted, and our incredibly helpful in understanding doctrine and practice. But when the two conflict, as if when a portion of the Apocrypha contains some doctrine that is at odds with the 66 (or your pastor for that matter), Scripture must carry the day. This was what was referred to by Luke's commendation of Bereans about his own oral and written teaching:

Acts 17:10-11 "10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

Luke states that the Bereans were praiseworthy in that they eagerly checked the oral teachings of Paul and Silas to see whether or not they spoke truth. Notice that if Scriptures did not contain concepts communicated by Paul and Silas, the Bereans would have concluded that the concepts themselves were dispensable (although not necessarily untrue).

Consider how this might relate to Roman Catholicism. If a Catholic claims that tradition differs in substance from the Holy Writ, and Paul and Silas were communicating these traditions, then the Bereans would have been lauded by Luke for dispensing with these traditions. Or, if Luke had believed that there are oral traditions which are on par with, but not necessarily equivalent in substance to Scripture, Luke would have withheld his praise from the Bereans for their actions. Or, if Paul and Silas believed the Catholic concept of authority, then they should have chastened the Bereans for not recognizing that outside of the written text, there is an oral tradition which is equal in authority and different in substance. In this case, Paul might have responded to their efforts by saying, “you may or may not find what we are talking about in the text. But that’s irrelevant because Scripture is not the only authority.” But we find no such things.

Jeremiah

Jake, your comparison of the Church with the east wind, or Babylon as instruments underscores a problem with modern Protestant Theology, and that is the gnostic notion that all things material are unimportant at best, and/or evil at worst. The creation may be an instrument, but we His Church are a temple unto God, the pillar and ground of truth, the Body of Him who filleth all in all.

Another fact that is not acknowledged in this discussion is the fact that Scripture must be interpreted. Let me take that back, it is acknowledged indirectly when you stated that the Bible is not exhaustive. Who has the authority to interpret it aright? Anyone who claims the Holy Spirit and is a Christian? Nearly 30,000 denominations and countless cults prove that's not the case. A Church that holds to the Traditions and Doctrines of the Apostles, and has a succession of Apostolic authority has the correct interpretation. Now, this does not say all others are therefore patently false. They have varying degrees of "fullness", so to speak. The reason your friend Josh wonders about "these 66 and no more" is because the modern churches have almost no continuity with history and tradition of the historic Church. Heck even modern "Reformed" Churches have a vastly different theology than the reformers. Just one example is the teaching on Mary. The reformes regarded her as the Mother of God, Ever-Virgin. No modern Protestants believe that, let alone early Church writings.

I think we would do well to examine our modern theology in the light of the earliest teachings of the Church on the Scriptures. That's not to say that just because it's old it's gold. But if it's true, it's not new. I know I am making some broad statements, but I don't have room to get into too much detail.

Jake

Jeremiah, comparing the protestant doctrine of inspiration to Gnosticism is like calling someone who recycles a left-wing tree-hugger: a gross mischaracterization. The protestant tradition has been recognized by scholarship as possessing a robust connection of sacred and secular. A part of the wild impact of Luther among the masses was the elevation of the blacksmith to priest in his trade, wielding the tools of his daily trade by God’s power for his glory. That seized the hearts of the peasant and pauper who, up to that time, viewed pope, pastor, and prince as the real instruments through which God really works. It certainly is no secret that most historians attribute sciences like higher criticism to a reformational view of general revelation as it relates to special revelation. It was from Germany and Geneva that the clergy began to take seriously the instrument of inspiration (by applying humanistic principles of literary analysis to the text and authors), not Rome or Constantinople.

Further, I think you missed my overall point. You contend that if the church is used by God to write scripture and to recognize it, it must wield an authority equal to it. My examples show that this is unwarranted move, not that the church is completely unimportant in the process (which I also was clear on). Reason and Scripture seem to move us to assert the primacy of Scripture in authority over against a church entrusted to steward this Scripture.

I don’t think your argument from division works. Both the RCC and EOC claim to have a pedigree of tradition which corrects conflicting interpretations, and yet…

(1) a person must interpret these traditions in order to figure out how they answer debatable doctrines. Rome says that in order to have a set body of doctrines, you must have an infallible interpreter. Of course this is terribly naïve and circular, for we all have to interpret the pope (more accurately, the church’s pronouncements) when they tell us what Scripture means. Do we then have to be infallible?

(2) we must have good reason to believe that any proffered tradition comes from an apostle (which most often boils down to, “It comes from Peter because we say so). Again, circular.

(3) one often finds the same debates brewing in the RCC and EOC that you find in Protestantism (e.g., those who will have a strong view of God’s sovereignty in salvation, and others who will emphasize human agency debating in back rooms).

(4) one finds the same disunity at the time of the apostles. I would assume that you believed that all of the elements necessary for unity existed in the early church (otherwise why would the apostles chide the churches for factions). And yet we see significant disunity then. For example, the Corinthian Church had Scripture, tradition, and the apostles present in their assembly. However, when Paul addressed the church in 55 A.D., it was fractured by factions (1:10). Various groups in the congregation formed in isolation to others, each one claiming to be closer to the truth. Some claimed to be of the Pauline school, others the Apollosian school, others of the Petrine persuasion, and still others claimed to be allied with Christ himself (1:12). In short, disparaging disunity. This factiousness continued up to and beyond the dawn of the second century, recorded for us by Clement who takes the Corinthians back to Paul’s writings, reminding them that nothing had changed on their part.

Given these observations, if a RC or EO wants to maintain that their view of authority is the kind that is necessary and sufficient for everything in Christian living, including unity, and yet the Corinthian church displays a seditious disunity in the midst of this tripartite authority, should we conclude that RC and OC are wrong in their doctrine of authority? We must if we follow the line of reasoning offered here. Now if RC or EO can maintain their view of authority in the midst of the seditious disunity in the Corinthian church (and beyond), then why can’t the Protestant maintain Sola Scriptura even though all of Christendom seems to be a macrocosm of Corinth? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You say, “The reason your friend Josh wonders about "these 66 and no more" is because the modern churches have almost no continuity with history and tradition of the historic Church.” Certainly reformers both pre and post Protestantism knew all about history and tradition, in fact they were steeped in it. It was precisely the unhealthy elevation of these that they so vigorously responded to. Their argument was that there wasn't the degree of continuity with the New Testament and the existing churches that should exist. Their reforms where born out of discontinuity that existed between church and ancient church history, particularly the New Testament. Their conviction (which I agree with) was that to the extent that you let up on the authority of the Word of God in your life and church, to that extent you’ll stray from it. And so any healthy church will always be in reformation, constantly being challenged and checked by Scripture.

Jeremiah

I was not comparing Protestant view of inspiration gnostic, but the view of the material creation. It is not an explicit comparison, but implicit. But that really wasn't my point.
Comparing the RC and the EO only goes as far as a surface comparison of what appears to be the same ritual and sacrament. There is, as a result of the Great Schism, a huge difference in the theology of the two. The West became rationalistic, forensic and juridical in it's understanding of Scripture, Tradition and Sacrament. History shows that when Rome broke from the East, her theology changed as well. Not completely, but there were novel inovations to the Apostolic Traditions. An objective look at the early Church Fathers in comparison to RC (Especially after the Middle Ages) will show a vast difference. But Compare the same to EO and you will not find significant differences.

Also, you stated one finds the same debates in RC and EO. Actually, the Dogmas of the EO are non-negotiable and have not changed. One has to look no further than Vatican I to see dogmas added to the RC that were not there in previous centuries. There are a lot of doctrinal differences in the RC and Protestantism. While there are many areas where the EO differ, doctrine is not one of them. That's not a "we're better than you," statement. Just an objective fact.
I don't see how the disunity in Corinth = EO being wrong about authority. Nothing in your argument necessitates that conclusion. A look at the history of the 7 Ecumenical Counsels shows that there was great debate, but eventual unity. Even RC and EO were one Church for over 1000 years.

But again, you come at this discussion with the idea that Rome = totally wrong, so therefore East must = wrong too. I generalize in an exaggerated fashion, but you know what I mean. I will give you that the Reformers responded to the excesses of Rome in the best way they knew. But the EO contends they threw the baby out with the bath water. Tradition and Scripture are not at odds with one another. Rome's excesses were a result of adding to and defiling Holy Tradition, which led to bogus interpretation of Scripture to back up their claims. The EO doesn't have to do that.

A look at the Church Fathers shows a Church that looks nothing like modern Protestantism. Nor, for that matter, modern Roman Catholicism. What it does look like is the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't say that presumptuously. This is just from what I have been studying myself. Peter Gillquist and several others of Campus Crusade for Christ did the same study, and came up with the same conclusion. It's pretty fascinating.

Again, I don't paint Protestants and RC's as wrong outright. I just see that the EO have a more complete understanding of Scripture, Tradition, Sacrament and the Church. The Church does not need constant reformation, as we tend to think of it. She does need reminders, as did Israel before her.

Jake

Jeremiah, the context of comparing Protestantism to Gnosticism was related to my assertion that just as there is concurrence in history, there is concurrence in inspiration. Concurrence forces us to look at God work and human instrumentality. Regardless, I also think it is a gross mischaracterization that they were Gnostic about creation.

As to the comparison of the RC and EO, I’m definitely aware of the differences and wouldn’t want to confuse the two. The similarity is, however, the conviction that the church possesses an authority on par with Scripture because it was given through her apostles and prophets and collected by church officers. I think that this is an unwarranted step, as I have argued; most of the points being relevant for the RC and OC.

But let’s take the issue of uniformity of doctrine. For all the issues that divide the RC and PC (Protestant Churches), (1) In what way does the OC maintain uniformity? a) By having official positions on most contentious matters – A Robust Uniformity. b) By emphasizing essential and cardinal doctrines, while remaining silent or flexible on tertiary matters – A Mild Uniformity.

If it’s the former, then I’d be really interested to see how the OC works to ground their exhaustive official stances on all the particular minutia that Christians debate over. I have a suspicion that such justification would be less than convincing and would lapse back on claims of authority (because we say so).

If it’s the later, then it appears that there is a tolerance of difference because the OC is more interested in affiliation to the organizational side of the church. At this point, it would seem that the charge of rampant division is not as forceful as it was thought to be. As long as you affiliate with the organization, participate in its liturgies, confess the universal creeds and subscribe to a few doctrines that are deemed important, you’re OC. That sounds like my church, and a bunch of others as well.

This leads to a broader point. In my estimation, the OC is just another denomination like others. Instead of being the exception to the norm, they’re just another example of it (division). Unlike other denominations, they claim to be THE denomination, the purest expression of Christian faith and practice. This big claim deserves big justification. I don’t think there is.

My argument about Corinth was designed to show that if a person claims that division in the church is a sign of inadequate authority (as in the case of, “protestants are hopelessly divided because they don’t recognize the role of the church, church fathers… in interpreting Scripture”), they must assert something was inadequate the Paul/Corinth saga. But of course we don’t want to say that. Everything needed to maintain unity was present there, and yet there was no unity. Come to find out, this type of disunity existed not just in Corinth, but all over. The early church was a microcosm of the modern church. The church of Jerusalem adopted different liturgy, diet, expression, and had a different value for the role of OT in NT life. The Gentile churches were less stringent, viewed by some as libertines. The leaders of Jerusalem were tempted to say that their denomination was the purest denomination and had to be corrected, with some concessions. The examples abound.

The bigger point. My argument isn’t that the OC is necessarily wrong in their claim to authority from these observations, but that the presence of division doesn’t mean that they are right in their claim to authority; over and against protestants who don’t possess their particular formula for authority. Division doesn’t necessitate the inadequacy of Scripture being the primary and fundamental source of authority in the church. There was division then, there is division now.

I understand the OC feeling that the Reformers went too far in their evaluation of tradition, but of course the reformers would argue that they handled them well. They were quick to esteem church fathers and labored at understanding them, but also recognized that they too were teachers, fallible and ultimately subject to the scrutiny of Scripture.

The comparison of church fathers and modern expressions of church may be significant; it may not be. Having been to a few Orthodox Services, much of the liturgy appeares completely foreign to descriptions of church life in the NT (1Cor.14). I don’t discount the OC expression, but cringe at their conviction that somehow they have captured the model. Further, what church father at what age? One observes significant changes from 2nd century (in ecclesial and doctrinal expressions) from 6th century expressions.

I do agree that the church father exercised unity at the 7 councils, but remember that the topic was extremely narrow, and conclusion universally apply to the diversity of all churches today (with exception to Nicea pt. 2): the person of Christ. If they would have expanded their scope to address all issues dealt with in all churches, we would not find this same kind of unity. On essentials unity. But on non-essentials, can there be both charity and “division” like we see between the Jerusalem and Gentile churches. I think so. Unity, “yes.” I’m not so sure about the OC pursuit of uniformity.

Cliff Notes on Theology: Why are these Books in the Bible and not others?

by JM

A bigger Bible has to be a better Bible right; more books, a better Book? Just as we may desire our neighbor’s Escalade or our spouses generous helping at Chili’s, we might be tempted to covet a Roman Catholic’s Bible or the Jesus’ Seminar’s canon with there inclusion of Gnostic texts alleged to truly represent historic Christianity. In a moment of weakness, you may be tempted to protest out of covetousness, “that’s not fair, why do the Catholics get sixteen or so more books than we do!?!” “Why don’t we get the Gospel of Thomas!?!” May I submit that a bigger Bible isn’t a better Bible, but a worse Bible. Here are some Cliff Notes on the topic.

Why the 39 books of the Old Testament?

Both ancient Jews and modern Orthodox Jews have always affirmed the inspiration of the 39 books of the OT. As to the Apocrypha, many of these books are regarded the way in which we today view good books written by Christian authors: beneficial, but never inspired. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (1546) that the Roman Catholic Church christened these books “inspired.” This was arguably born out of a desperate attempt to counter the Reformers whose critique was grounded by the set content of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New rather than tradition and the church magisterium.

How do we know that the 39 books that presently make up our Old Testament are the right books and all the books? The process of collection and codification is more detailed than I care to get into here, so I’ll just refer you to works that answer this in a way deserving the space they dedicate to it. Let me offer a quick and easy answer so that you can get on with your day. Jesus is authoritative, and he seems to have affirmed the particular set of Old Testament books we have in our Protestant Bibles. The argument goes like this: 1) The Jews in Jesus time clearly regarded the 39 books of the OT as inspired and the Apocrypha as uninspired (cf., Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8). 2) Jesus consistently uses catch phrases that were popular for this particular compilation of books, phrases like “Law and Prophets” (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 22:40) and “Law, Prophets, and Writings.” When Jesus uses these phrases, he does so in ways that implies and confirms that they represented the entirety of the Old Testament canon. 3) Jesus refers to nearly all the Old Testament books and to no Apocryphal work. 4) Therefore, since Jesus affirms the canon accepted in his day (known as the “The Palestinian Canon” and consisted in the same books that Protestants have), so should we.

Why the 27 books of The New Testament?

I would follow a similar train of thought with the New Testament. (1) Jesus seems to predict and affirm the inclusion of more books into the Bible to be written by or under the influence of His apostles. (2) Jesus is authoritative and endorses the authority of these books prior to their production. (3) Therefore we should affirm the authority of these books after their production.

Jesus seems to have affirmed that there were a particular group of people who would serve as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20), partly because they would deliver God-inspired truths by the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 3:5; John 14:25; 16:13) in the line and authority of Old Testament prophets (Matthew 23:29-36). For this reason, the apostles knew that they themselves wrote Scripture (1 Thess. 2:13), spoke of each other’s writings as Holy Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), and were regarded by the New Testament community as worthy of a devotion fit only for Scripture (Acts 2:42). Consequently, one important criteria used by early Christians for regarding a book as Scripture was apostolicity, that it (1) was written by an apostle (e.g. The gospel according to John), or (2) written by someone who knew and was endorsed by an apostle (e.g. Luke and Mark), (3) or displays overwhelming internal earmarks of apostolic connection regardless of questionable authorship (e.g. Hebrews). The rule of thumb established by Christ himself was, “If it’s apostolic, its authoritative because Christ vested the apostles with such authority.”

This is indirectly confirmed by the attempts of Gnostic writers of the 2nd and 3rd century who attempted to garner recognition for their writings by attributing them to apostles (such as “The Gospel of Thomas” and The Gospel of Philip”), which were and are recognized by those who are sane as forgeries penned well after the lives of the men alleged to be their authors.

In parting, keep in mind that the process by which both the Old and New Testament Church came to possess the canon was one in which they discovered it, not determined it. This process of discovery was itself overseen by the Holy Spirit, ensuring that the church would discover and recognize God’s divinely inspired Scriptures. No more and no less.


For greater depth, consider the articles hosted at the following page: HERE

The Mystery of Providence

Here are six reasons, from Puritan John Flavel, why we shouldn't dismiss providence as being the mere outworking of natural causes.

1. Naturalism cannot explain why so many of the mercies given to the saints are clearly above the power of and against the course of natural causes.

2. Naturalism cannot explain how so many natural causes can unite and associate themselves in such strange ways for the relief and benefit of God's people.

3. Naturalism cannot explain how the most powerful means directed to destroy God's people are rendered ineffectual, while the weakest means employed for their defence and comfort are crowned with success.

4. Naturalism cannot explain how the good and evil directed towards God's people are often temporaly rewarded and punished accordingly.

5. Naturalism cannot explain the sensitive timing of the deliverences experienced by God's people.

6. Naturalism cannot explain the concommitence of prayer and such deliverences.


Flavel offers numerous examples to support each proposition. Definitely worth the read - "The Mystery of Providence" by John Flavel

Recent Messages

I've been busy preaching and teaching...

The Gospel According to Mark

The Passion, Mark 15 - HERE November 29, 2009
Parable of the Landowner, Mark 12 - HERE November 8, 2009
Bad Religion -HERE September 6, 2009
Don't Waste Your Obscurity- HERE August 9, 2009

Faith Essentials

Week 1: God Is – The Nature of God- HERE - Sept. 15,2009
Week 2: God Speaks – The Word of God - HERE - Sept. 22,2009
Week 3: God Makes – The Works of God- HERE - Sept. 29, 2009
Week 4: God Loves – The Creation of Man -HERE - Oct. 6, 2009
Week 5: God Judges – The Fall of Man - HERE - Oct. 13, 2009
Week 6: God Incarnates – The Person of Jesus - HERE -Oct, 20, 2009
Week 7: God Saves – The Work of Jesus - HERE - Oct, 27, 2009
Week 8: God Transforms –The Person & Work of the Holy Spirit - HERE - Nov. 3, 2009
Week 9:God Restores – The Coming of Jesus - HERE - Nov. 10, 2009

Handouts - HERE

Leadership Boot Camp

Leadership and Your Heart - NA - Oct. 25,2009
Leadership and The Church - HERE - Nov. 1, 2009
Leadership and Your Church - HERENov. 8, 2009
Leadership and Small Groups - HERENov. 15, 2009

Handouts - HERE

Tim Keller Resources

To celebrate 20 years of ministry, Redeemer Presb. offers 150 free sermons/lecture - HERE.

Helpful Charts on Eschatology

Helpful Charts on End Times - HERE

Discussion on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Though I'd share another facebook discussion. This one is related to penal substitutionary atonement. Here was the phrase I posted that was in contention: The Gospel: Saved by God, From God, and For God.

Here's the Dialogue

Jeremiah: Actually, the "from God" is indicative of the penal substitution model of salvation developed in the middle ages by the Roman Catholic Church. As may seem counter-intuitive, this legal view of salvation as a transaction made its way into the doctrine of the reformers, and eventually modern evangelicaism. Hence doctrines such as Calvinism (which are also based on Roman Catholic views of Original Sin in conjunction with penal substitution )This model was never a part of the early church as a whole (I know there were a few who held to this). The Eastern Orthodox hold to a view that does not have such a view of God. THAT is good news.

Jake: Jeremiah. The development of doctrine is certainly important for consideration. Clearly the Eastern fathers had a far more sophisticated view of the triunity of God than someone like Clement of Rome, and even Scripture. But we affirm that such sophistication is grounded in Biblical exegesis (with a few exception). Similarly, I would contend that the penal substitionary "model" is thoroughly Biblical, especially Pauline, and therefore a part of the early church. The fact that there is development (e.g. Augustine articulates it more clearly than Polycarp) doesn't negate that it is rooted in Canon, affirmed by early church fathers, articulated more clearly by later thinkers, and revived in the reformation.

Sorry, didn't get that last point. "The Eastern orthodox hold to a view that does not have such a view of God. THAT is good news." So, its good news that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Is it good news because you feel that God is misrepresented by the doctrine? If so, how so?

Jeremiah:I don't deny that some language of the Pauline Epistles lend themselves to a formulation of a penal substitutionary model, but that does not necessarily mean that is what is intended by Paul. If I am not mistaken, the earliest Church Fathers and the majority them, did not hold to the penal substitutionary model. I don't have the space here to fully articulate the Eastern Orthodox model of salvation. But I can say that what I meant by "THAT is good news" is that the Orthodox view does not view God as needing to be saved "from" in the sense meant by the penal understanding.
I believe God is misrepresented by the penal model, because His mercy is overshadowed by a kind of peranoid fear of punishment, or makes God look bi-polar to an unsaved world. The Orthodox understanding recognizes that while God is a consuming fire, He is love. The two are inseperable. While we experience His love as a refining fire (those being saved), the unsaved experience His love as a tormenting fire. While this doesn't answer every verse or refernce to a God who punishes, has vengeance, is full of wrath, etc (so don't quote a bunch to me), the Orthodox take God Mercy and Grace into consideration first. That is what I meant by good news.

Jake:I don't get what you mean when you say that the penal substitutionary atonement position (PSA) overshadows the mercy of God by a kind of paranoid fear of punishment or makes God look bi-polar... Please elaborate.

I'm not sure the distinction between refining fire and tormenting fire escapes the same dichotomy that you ascribe to the reformed position. You say "tormenting love," we say "wrath and vengeance." They both equate to hell being hot and long (unless you don't affirm that hell hurts and is eternal). I too, though reformed, believe that hell is probably the most loving thing God can do for someone who continues to be an enemy of the cross. I see no inconsistency between affirming this and PSA.

The good news, as Romans 3:19-26 describes it, is that God's loved moved him to propitiate our sins on the cross by Jesus (absorbing wrath deserved to us) so that God could simultaneous be "just" (maintain his holiness) and "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus," that is, so that God can treat us as if we were righteous though we are not. (thus, expressing his love for a lost humanity). This is forensic and penal in nature.

Mercy and Grace are terms that are logically dependent on notions of justice and righteousness. Justice is when God maintains what is right. Mercy and Grace refers to how God treats us when we are not right. Considering Grace and Mercy first is a false move. Just as truancy (as in "your child was truant today") presupposes and depends on the idea of attendance, so grace presupposes and depends on justice. Propitiation "allows" God to treat us graciously without sacrificing justice in the process. That, my friend, is gospel.

Scott: It seems that there is clear language of a judicial nature in the doctrine of the atonement, but it doesn't seem to be the only language. If one seeks to negate the judicial language, I believe he would have to argue against the empirical evidence of Scripture. However, as John Stott would point out, there are other ways of describing the atonement, as well, which contribute to a fuller sense of the sacrifice that Christ made. J.I. Packer would even caution not to view the atonement solely on human models of retributive justice and suggests that it be seen not as a mechanical explanation (how it works) but rather kerygmatically (what it means to us). There is definitely a spiritually valuable application from the PSA model, one that should not be despised.

Jake:Good points Scott. The PSA model doesn't exclude other facets of the atonement (e.g. Christus Victor), but likewise those other facets don't exclude PSA. I would add that "substitution" grounds almost every way we view atonement. I would even argue that penal substitution actually grounds many of the other facets of the atonement, and so is foundational in understanding the rich language describing the atonement. So when we say Christus Victor, Jesus saves humanity from the powers of evil and sin, why are sin and the powers of evil a problem? The power of sin is in the law. The accusation of Satan is grounded in the law. And the law is just an extension of God's nature. So, the reason why sin and Satan are issues, is because God is at issue.

Scott: Agreed. If the law is perfect, reflecting the character and holiness of God, it shouldn't be seen as an offense when it's transgressed by humanity, nor, especially, should the satisfaction made for it by Jesus, our Advocate, Ransom-payer and Bearer of God's judgment on us.

Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

by John Piper

It depends on how you define "possible."

If "possible" means, "Did he have the brain and the natural capacities to discern a temptation and choose it," then yes. He had a brain and he had a will. If he didn't, he would not have been a human being.

He's discerning, he's thinking, he's feeling. He knows what hunger is. He knows what sexual arousal is, and so on. He knows these things! He's a human being. If he didn't have those then he wouldn't be a human being.

But historically, the word "possible" has another meaning, a very important meaning—namely, a moral ability. There's a natural ability, which he must have in order to be accountable and human, and a moral ability, which he did not have.

A moral ability is when you are bad enough to choose sin. There's enough badness in you that you can choose sin. Jesus didn't have it. There was no badness in Jesus.

Therefore he did not ever, in his willing and feeling and in his perception of temptation, he didn't ever rise to the point of going there. Because that's evil in us!

Evil is not just acting. Evil is wanting to act in a certain way. Craving money is as bad as having money that you stole. "I want the praise of man, I want that money, I want that lustful object"—and those wants are evil.

Jesus never had any of those. He was perfect. And if you don't have those, you can't do it!

You can't choose to sin if there is no desire to sin. And Jesus never had any desire to sin. Therefore he couldn't sin.

And so, in those two ways, it was possible and it wasn't possible for Jesus to sin.

Christless Christianity

There are a dozen diagnoses for the decline of Christianity in America: church models, church polity, musical style, position on end times, use of technology, whether your minister wears boxers or briefs...

How about this one: Much of what passes for Christianity in the West is Christ-less. Michael Horton's book is a compelling expose on the topic. If you're going to read a book before then end of this year, read this one: Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Hardcover)

Dialogue on faith, rationality, and the exclusivity of Jesus

Interesting conversation I had on facebook with a very bright guy named Pawel. Thought I'd share it. It was incited by the following video - HERE.

Pawel: The existance of the creator is far more complex than our mere attempt of understanding this force through personification and our finite abilities of understanding it by attempting to make it humanlike. It is, the creating force we like to call God, a vibrational energy responsible as the prime mover of systems as simple as a molecular recombination to create what we render as the double helix - hence our ability to be the mere fabric of perception- to gravity and attraction of mass and objects at given distances creating systems which move in a whirlpool of expansion and contraction. It is this energy which is responsible for what we consider good. Lack of this creational energy is the void and absence of, what we call evil or vacuum- dark matter. Personification is dangerous - in our short history- the source of extremism, conviction, and world conflicts leading to void or absence of high vibrational energy - or what we like to call God. Just a thought.

Me: Pawel, Very thoughtful. I would go the other direction however. The true danger is impersonification. Scripture declares God not merely to be personal, but supra-personal, tri-personal; a communal being who marks mankind with these personal communal attributes which define what good and evil are in relational contexts. To depersonalize the prime-mover is to undermine the very ontological basis of things like ethics, love, etc, reducing them to meaningless by-products of an impersonal system. Consequently, extremism, conviction, world conflicts, evil... are relatives, ultimately meaningless and perhaps even distracting.

Pawel: Hence the circular argument of who wrote scripture and with what motive in mind. As recently as zoroastrian formulation into our renditions of monotheism Christianity has become one vehicle for control- hence Nietzsche's argument that we killed God. I see your point but it is so easy to put a face - personify in the meaning of the term regarding to theology- as an attempt to understand something omnipresent omnicient and omnibenevolant. This is something we cannot explain by writing a book a few thousand years ago claiming it was the hand of God responsible for it. The absurdity of the thought that the creator would use a tool such as the hand of man- one of it's manifestations- to write rules and conduct for the mere hand pressing the ink into the page initself is proof that personification leads away from God suggesting weaknes through sin and the inability for the moral man to strive for the good him self- that high vibration we call God. This is the pivotal error man makes - the belief in being controlled by a force which he cannot be a moral man without. The jester. The hypocracy lyes within the man who by trying to believe has lost all faith. Kierkegaard would side with this notion as well. Blessings to you.

Me:

1. Such an argument can be circular. But I suggested that without a metaphysical and personal foundation for categories like good and evil, those terms are devoid of significance. That is arguing transcendentally from phenomena to what must be true to make sense of that phenomena. What is the "good" man is to strive for when we've removed the metaphysical underpinnings?

2. Further, I don't see how depersonalizing the the creator (e.g. vibration, prime-mover, first cause...) is in better keeping with the infinite nature the creator. I guess I would have to hear why personality and the infinite are truly mutually exclusive.

3. Although I see the foolishness of man reaching out and explaining deity, but I see no absurdity in deity explaining his nature and attributes to us. God, stooping down and "lisping" (as parents do to toddlers). By use of analogy, communicating meaningful information about himself. Our notions of power, causation, intelligence, are shady at best, but certainly sufficient to think of things like omni-this and omni-that; infinity here and there. Scripture is God revealing himself to us by analogy.

4. I'm not sure what Kierkegaard would be agreeing with in your statement. As a Christian existentialist, he was quick to posit a personal God to make sense out of his existential quest.

Pawel: Kierkegaard did more than posit a personal God to make sense out of his existential quest- but this is a topic all on its own. Sure all may be devoid of significance as we need the metaphysical to even have this discussion. Our senses, the area of the brain mapped in having a spiritual experience in the front corner through sodium and potassium exchanges, the electricity generated in doing so, hence the vibrational energy in creating secretions of hormones responsible for our mere senses and emotions, sight smell touch love hunger fear. The metaphysical is the only vehicle for our human experience. Some of the best scientists will not deny the force which may be responsible for theses processes. As we try to explain science, mathematics, and all quantifiable experiences, we do so with God. We also try to explain, as you did, that God explains himself through us meaningful information. Without us God would have no vehicle to do this hence he would no longer exist- just like the color you see on this screen would not exist if you did not come equipped with cones and rods in the back of your eyes sensing refractions and lengths of both waves and particles transforming into electricity in your occipital lobe, neither would the notion of God as he exists only through yours and mine contemplation. Faith? let it be so strong as to have no wonder if this is true, by merely trying to explain this- we doubt. One cannot argue the faith of an old woman living on a farm believing all her 80 years of her life with full conviction that Jesus Christ is the holy son of her God, yet we do this every time we slap a bumper sticker on the back of our SUV, the trademarking of faith such as Not Of This World TM. Just a modern take on the killing of God and the faith which exists independent of any notion of itself. True faith needs no explanation nor quantity yet we try to out do ourselves through proof to others of our faith and preaching to others what we may thing is righteous. Analogy is the only way we can try to make sense out of the literal as literal has no meaning for us without comparison to analogous situations. This is our mistake, the fact that literal cannot be explained is just that. God cannot be explained and yet we try to describe that he is doing this through us further proving the point that the notion of his existence would seize the moment we all turn to ash. It is our ego which allows for Gods existence as well as it is our ego that simultaneously nullifies him. Once we are egoless, only then can we experience the creator through love and devotion. This is the only way we will experience unity- without there will exist a perpetual race toward whose God is the righteous one- Allah, God, Jashuah...all the oooo and aaa sounds generated as our throats vibrate the sound as we utter this wavelength of sound constant in all faiths on our tiny planet. As soon as we argue for or against- we argue against ourselves, and the 80 year old devoted Christian woman with blind faith not needing proof of anything. Keep the faith!

Me: I’m completely on board in positing the metaphysical as the basis of the physical. I don’t think it’s a reciprocal relationship as you suggested, as in “without us… he would no longer exist.” Although it sounded like you were being more poetic than making a claim about God’s ontological status, elsewhere you suggest otherwise. The illustration of light as applied to God would make sense only if you conflated the primary and secondary qualities of something like light. First of all, I think there are good reason to hold to metaphysical realism when it comes to qualities like color, sounds, etc..., the first being the solipsistic reductionism that we want to avoid, namely, that we must reduce all of the physical world to subjectivity, because we are unable to interact with the world apart from perception. Secondly, the perception of light presumes and depends on the presence wavecycles; there’s an objective grounding our peceptions. In a similar way, though I knowledge of God is mediated through x, y, and z, it is faulty to reduce God to x,y,z. In the Christian doctrine of Revelation, God selects those mediums that best communicate himself to creature (imago dei, incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, inspiration of Scripture). God is uber capable of communicating truths about himself to beings who are less than infinite.

Faith? Faith presumes both objective and subjective components. Faith is in x. Faith in faith is absurd, like an eye looking at it self. Faith in faith can often be a ruse for egoism: I have faith in self (sounds like a Whitney Houston song). Kierkegaard argued that faith is a living, vivacious, active trusting in the Word of God. He resisted cold, stale, and lifeless orthodoxy, but never jettisoned orthodoxy proper.

I can see how ego can lead to a reductionism of God to this or that (creating God in our image). I find it instructive, however, that Scripture posits the first and enduring sin as the refusal of people to submit to God’s revelation of himself to them. The issue in human nature isn’t so much the we like putting God in our little boxes, but rather we refuse to accept the particular revelation of God to people, a revelation that communicates truths about him, the world, and you and I. Sola Fide!

Pawel: In order for faith to work it cannot be both objective and subjective. Kierkegaard argued for the subjective Christian- Thus faith is not the belief that someday someone will be able to prove the objective existance of God, as you are hinting at by posting videos such as the one above, faith is rather a commitment of oneself, with infinate passion, to something that is not based on objective fact or needs proving or spreading. By its very nature faith involves risk- and I am hopeful that you can agree with this without a poetic accusation or a metaphysical hair splitting of the nature of photons and our tools to perceive it- maybe I miscommunicated through interjecting one of the three other languages I speak- merely using English as the platform for the sake of this discussion. so I'll give you the benefit of. plus it was late and I just got out of the recording studio after my session :) . The absurdity that eternal truth has entered time as in the creating of scriptures themselves initself did not stand with Kierkagaard- Many Christians will deny that faith requires that the individuals relationship to the eternal truth be a paradox, what is true for the individual may be objectively false- hence my example of the elderly woman who I met in Croatia last Septemer, and the absurdity of a friend of mine who was with me at the time, making the mistake of trying to argue her subjective faith- him being the symbolic objective truth that god does not exist.

In a nutshell - if God is an objective truth- for the sake of you arguing for his existance with another spin on circular arguing that it is god trying to communicate with us not us manifesting his existence- if roles would change and now that woman is an 80 your old atheist and you were to argue to her that her belief, or there lack of, is false and her subjectivity will result in hell and eteranal damnation, I would have to side with her as to the fact that you should not have reasons to uphold or justify you being a Christian. If you do really believe in god, for the sake of simplicity, then you would dismiss the absurd that eternal truth has enetered time- as is the problem with Christianity itself through the perpetual recycling of words at bible studies and sunday sermons. That god has entered existence, has been born, has taken up human characteristcs (personification)- quite indistinguishable from other humans. As our friend Kierk would have it- the absurd is precisely by objective repultion the measure of the inwardnes of faith- I hope I am remembering this correctly- its been 15 years since I read him. And maybe you will agree that the danger of subjectivity in its extreme is madness. I sure would not argue with a mad 80 year old woman though-

When, if I was to believe that god exists, I understand that what I belive cannot be rationally understood or justified- since it is objectively a paradox. Yet if, in spite of the lack of external support, I still believe, then it must be because I consciously decide, with all the passion of the infinate, to choose to bring this commitment into existence. If the professor believes there is cold and dark- there is cold and dark and the little child arguing proved absolutely nothing- add a little emptional music and cinematography and you have yourself a religious campaign as inaffective as standing and protesting in front of an abortion clinic, and why you might ask? In a multicultural society such as ours the opposition of the detail of other faiths is far too strong to make prayer at school plausible. Cute video though I must admit- and it will attrack all those who frequently mentally masturbate the area of their cortex most active during a religious experience devoid of reason and logic- but lets not forget the danger of madness as a result of subjectivity. Zycze Ci prawdziwej wiary bez potrzeby udowodnienia ze Gog istnieje- Hwala!!!

ME: Enjoying the discussion. I don’t quite get the point that for faith to be operation, it must be act of pure subjectivity. Your mention of perceiving color and waves and particles was meant to illustrate your point that God only exists in our contemplation, without which he ceases to exist. My point is that this illustration in fact demonstrates both an objective/subjective dimension of reality, not the collapse of the objective into the subjective. I see nothing absurd or counterintuitive about the same subjective/objective dimensions existing in faith. Rather, I think this distinction protects us from ontological and moral relativism, or solipsism.

Understand about the late night. I have kids screaming in my ears, so I may end up typing in tongues before this is over.;o). I also am fluent in many languages…

I don’t see absurdity in eternal anything entering time and space. Plato’s whole philosophical motif was that there are these things called universals (timeless, perfect, infinite) that are constantly occasioned in time and space. Take numbers for an example. One might argue that numbers are an infinity. But this fact doesn’t prevent us from saying 1 2 3… adding, subtracting, dividing, etc. Of course it would be foolish for us to think that since we’ve grasped multiplication, therefore we understand everything there is to know about numbers. Equally foolish is to say that we can’t know anything about numbers; or to posit them requires leaps of faith and the abandonment of rationality. For plato, numbers are just one of many things that are eternal and yet instance themselves in time and space (e.g., logic, relations, the good…). The notion of the divine being incarnated in flesh is no novelty of Christianity.

It might be good to define what we mean by “objective” and “subjective.” By “objective” I mean that God existence and attributes are independent of me, the relator. Given that definition, I don’t think its good to call someone who thinks something to be true when its not true a “paradox.” I call that error. A paradox in my mind is when there are two qualities that seem to be in opposition of each other, and yet we affirm they are both true about some thing. Now I say “seem,” because a paradox by definition comes short of a contradiction, as in “God exists and doesn’t exist.” There’s no way this statement could be true in the same way and relationship.

Now the admission that one may be wrong, and yet affirms that the item believed to be true, is true of almost all of human knowledge (maybe with exception to self-knowledge). But with this common experience, we also see that it is epistemically responsible to proportion the subjective level of faith to objective markers; otherwise we have to argue that positing electrons (no one has seen one) is no more grounded than positing unicorns.

It might also be good to define “justify,” as in “what I believe cannot be rationally understood or justified- since it is objectively a paradox.” Empirically, light exhibits paradoxal qualities. We are “justified” in believing that light has these qualities, though we can’t comprehend how these two things are true. This is a great example of how rationality works. Reason takes us so far, but by itself is insufficient for infallible and exhaustive certitude. But this doesn’t negate the very reason that pointed to its own limitation.

I’m not sure what you mean by circular argumentation. Not its not that I don’t know what circular arguments are, but I don’t see how this applies to this discussion (i.e., God’s existence). Please explain to me where there is circularity.

It’s clear you’re not fond of the video. That’s fine. But the notion of communicated has a rich heritage in western philosophy, be it Plato, Plotinus and “the way of negation,” Augustine, Aquinas. Evil as the absence of what is right is also at the very heart of Scriptures definition of evil (e.g. god-lessness, un righteousness). Let’s be careful not to through out the baby with the bathwater.

You say, “and it will attrack all those who frequently mentally masturbate the area of their cortex most active during a religious experience devoid of reason and logic.” Ironic, given you’re presentation up to this point – religious faith is an irrational leap, devoid of reason and logic.” Define for me what role reason and logic plays in discussing matters of religious faith? If it doesn’t, I don’t get the critique. If it does, how have the great thinkers of the faith abused these tools. Sola Dei Gloria!

Pawel: Thank you Solomon for clarifying my point of what I was trying to say. I too am enjoying this conversation even though I had no ideal I was talking with a preacher. I'm honored- and a philosophy majour at that-super-honored. I think Solomon hit it right on the head. Love and god are synonamous. And he experiences this first hand with two beautiful children. There is a godliness about having that experience and as I would not argue with his experience of divinity as with the 80 year old woman for I sense his faith is genuine and subjective in the sense that it is his own inwardness through love without the need for further justification. Jake - I'm enjoying the discourse and now since I know you have a love for knowledge - hence your majour- I suggest you revisit Kierkegaards fear and trembling. I think this is where you might be a bit confused as far as me throwing around the context pertaining to definitions of subjectivism objectivism time and his three movements to faith. Unscientific postscript is another. Like I said it's been years for me but de Beauvoir, Camus, nietzche, Heideger, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Ayn Rhand, pre socratics such as Amos Hosea Isaiah Micah. Zepheniah babakkuk jerremiah anaxogoras gorgias archelaus philalous melissus are probably worth have been on my list to go back to so maybe you should consider it yourself as well- could be fun. Especially Kierkegaard since there seems to be a bit of misunderstand of his definitions. As far as the video goes- maybe if it was in a different language it would be a bit more appealing and warming. Guess the sombre feeling and mood just puts the wrong face on god. We are so condition to fear god even if it's through subconscious psychology- just another history of our Christian faith resurfacing inapt to fit the times and our spiritual evolution. Speaking of evolution how about that new discovery of the fossil. So much for the Lucy theory huh? But I'm sure scriptures were already written so that's ok. If not here then somewhere in the universe. SatNam!

ME: Pawel, good speaking with you. I've read fear and trembling three times (as well as other works of his); took two classes on Capt. Keirk. I'm no expert, but I think I get a sense of his thinking. The tension is of course with God's promise of Isaac (God's prior Word), God's command (kill Isaac), and the existential crisis of obeying the former despite the later. But even in this account, we have the Vox Dei (the Word of God), Abraham's past experience with God, and the conviction that God could somehow reconcile the apparent paradox (Heb.). It was a leap, but a leap off of something.

Understand about the video. It might be likened to Sheryl Crow redoing GNR's "Sweet Child of Mine." Unnecessary and not nearly as good as the original.