[Lightly edited 4 March, 2009]
Modern translations, usually for reasons of style rather than translation, alter "and" into many other terms, but, for, so, then, etc., as they put it, as context seems to require. Frequently "and" is also dropped altogether.
But a good translation needn't do this: context will give the sense; if there even is one: these alterations often seem to color the translations and imply what is not original, whether consecutive order, or specificity, or introductions to what appears to be a conclusion, for instance "so" as in "therefore...". There are plenty of situations where using different words to render an underlying word is fine: "flood" vs. "deluge"? Doesn't matter, but often the "simple" things elude such choice without altering the text, and "and" is quite simple to render; so again, let the context indicate anything if it's there to be indicated.
The frequent dropping of "and" also leaves a jarring, disconnected, horrid text to read. There's no narrative flow, no appreciation of a progressing thought: instead of a train, we have a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam: disconnected thoughts in a series. I'm trying to read more modern versions in the OT, and it. jars. me. and. feels. like. I'm. grinding. my. teeth. for. ev.er.y. si.ng.gle. se.nt.tence. Like modern punctuating1 that oversimplifies the situation rather than being literary and grammatical, [instead] all for style: thought is go--in...gng.....STOP. Okay thought is contin-u-ing STOP. Okay re-picking STOP up the STOP though. Picking-uSTOPp. thouSTOPougSTOPht.
Many of the changes seem made just because a few people don't like repetition of the use of "and", or because "authorities" protest using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences or too frequently (they don't now historical English, I suppose, or appreciate literature or device), though using them at the beginning, if such a problem, just suggests we ought not slovenly punctuate an originally unpunctuated text: punctuate for utility of conveying the text accurately, not stylistic tastes. And the specificity or nuances forced into the text by swapping something else in for "and" often just isn't there. The dropping of words is inappropriate: style be damned. I'll repeat: style be damned.
I'm not cursing: I'm using the hardest word of condemnation I know. Read the KJV sometime: it's not afraid to be so bold with such good-ol' terms, either. To hell with style when it interferes severely with accuracy.
1 punctuating, not punctuation, indicating the act of punctuating, not the signs themselves.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Interesting: flood vs. deluge
Literally, "flood" is related to "flow", and it's defined as merely a flow of water (connoting a lot, of course); "deluge" is from the verb "to wash away", "de"="away, "luge" is from "lavar"="to wash". The event referred to as "Noah's flood", with these in mind it tips my opinion in favor of using "deluge" rather than flood, particularly "God's deluge" rather than invoking "Noah", who was just a witness and obedient servant to build a ship and wait on the Lord's promised coming action.
I know I'm being very literal here, but something about "deluge" rings with me. The BBB and more liberally-minded "we should translate-for-the-uneducated/lazy" crowd would probably hate me for suggesting "deluge", but hey! My preference here comes from linking the etymological meaning of the word to the symbolism the flood embodies, namely, that God was washing-away the wickedness that so grieved Him. It's just artsy, not dogma.
It's like the guy who took-up complaint with the ESV Study Bible for linking some notes to certain used words rather than the context, which would be correct. I agree with the fellow on that point, but it is useful to note that linking certain words to certain teachings can also be a great way to help people remember something, and it's something people do naturally. Like when people remember the story by the words "Noah's flood", or like myself wanting us to invoke the significance behind recording that event in the Bible, by using the words "God's deluge". For one thing, with more accurate terminology and a little explanation, it ought (we'd hope) have those who would make God into a homeboy and a lovy-dovy sentimentalist who's just enamored with the poor helpless victimized-by-their-own-wickedness-people quake and repent of their false god. Yes, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son: the same God is also aggrieved, angered, and full of wrath for that world, however: and the next deluge, His word promises, will be not with water, but fire.
I know I'm being very literal here, but something about "deluge" rings with me. The BBB and more liberally-minded "we should translate-for-the-uneducated/lazy" crowd would probably hate me for suggesting "deluge", but hey! My preference here comes from linking the etymological meaning of the word to the symbolism the flood embodies, namely, that God was washing-away the wickedness that so grieved Him. It's just artsy, not dogma.
It's like the guy who took-up complaint with the ESV Study Bible for linking some notes to certain used words rather than the context, which would be correct. I agree with the fellow on that point, but it is useful to note that linking certain words to certain teachings can also be a great way to help people remember something, and it's something people do naturally. Like when people remember the story by the words "Noah's flood", or like myself wanting us to invoke the significance behind recording that event in the Bible, by using the words "God's deluge". For one thing, with more accurate terminology and a little explanation, it ought (we'd hope) have those who would make God into a homeboy and a lovy-dovy sentimentalist who's just enamored with the poor helpless victimized-by-their-own-wickedness-people quake and repent of their false god. Yes, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son: the same God is also aggrieved, angered, and full of wrath for that world, however: and the next deluge, His word promises, will be not with water, but fire.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern-Orthodoxy at Berean Beacon.
"
In recent years interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church among Christians has grown steadily and there have been a number of converts to this religious body. A prime reason for this interest has been the growing fascination with mysticism and ancient tradition which has permeated Western societies. Increasing numbers of Christians are coming into contact with Eastern Orthodox mysticism via the Emergent Church and the writings of the Orthodox "Church Fathers". There are many strands to Eastern Orthodox mysticism; this paper briefly examines a few significant areas such as Theosis, Hesychasm, the "Jesus Prayer", Spiritual Fathers and Light Mysticism. | 1. The Seven Pillars of Orthodoxy 2. Orthodox Bishops High Priests 3. Just Say No 4. Icons Visions of a Spiritual World 5. Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox 6. Eastern Orthodoxy The Mystical Trap |
"
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Eschatology
* Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
* Hyper- (full) preterism-A Heresy at Preterist Blog.
__"
* A[n Evaluation] of Dispensationalism
[This post may receive additional links, updating, etc.; it has beenset to 2007-2-19, though published 19, Feb 2009 , to move it out of the way. reset to its original publishing date, and was last modified 2010-06-08 at 4:02MST; I have considered setting the publishing date to dates of edit each time it is revisited in order that it should appear atop the blog so the edits be made known to any visitors, but currently reserve the beginning of such practice for a future date.]
* Hyper- (full) preterism-A Heresy at Preterist Blog.
__"
[...] all of the “orthodox” eschatologies affirm exactly the 3 things that hyperpreterism denies. Hyperpreterism, in contradiction to 2000 years of Christian belief[,] claim[s] three things [...]
"
* A[n Evaluation] of Dispensationalism
[This post may receive additional links, updating, etc.; it has been
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament
Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.
Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes1 his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.
Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.
I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not because of any Arminian tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.
1 To "eisegete" a text or word is to impute (read) meaning into it that's not original to it.
Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes1 his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.
Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.
I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not because of any Arminian tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.
1 To "eisegete" a text or word is to impute (read) meaning into it that's not original to it.
"Baptist"
[The following is subject to much amendment and refining.]
The sad part of the term "baptist", is that it is associated with so much, and used so ambiguously. When used people think of "the baptists", but "the baptists" is a name applied to a broad and diverse range of people with varying beliefs. All evangelicals that do not baptize infants (kids fine, but not infants) are "baptists", using the proper definition of what the term designates!
There are "baptists" who are as different from one another as Roman Catholics from Conservative, Confessional Presbyterians. In fact, Reformed Baptists ("RB's") typically differ from Presbyterians only in that RB's reject (1) paedobaptism and the teachings associated with it, such as assumed/presumed regeneration of believers' children as unbiblical, anti-evangelical, and contrary to Christ, and also, (2) the failure of to recognize that the New Covenant has a discontinuity from the old, the law written on the heart of believers, and that community being composed only of such inscribed individuals (which is biblical), (3) the dominionist-like "magisterial" elements of the Westminster Confession. RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism found in Presbyterianism through the "continuity" sought with the Anglican's Church's 39 articles, which themselves sought to preserve a "Continuity" with the Church's thoroughly Roman past. (4) RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism in Reformed camps in the form of remaining Sacramentalism, especially in the form of "administering" the fuzzily-defined "means of grace": RB's, unlike Presbys-through-Rome, are perfectly willing to just sit-down and break bread in remembrance of the Lord (though still taking it seriously, of course), without the presence of the supposedly needed "properly ordained minister" to "administer" [God's] grace. In government, however, RB's are usually (for all practical purposes) Presbyterian without the addition of a bunch of supraecclesial levels beyond the individuals congregations, that is, they associate, not denominate (ARBCA is the exception--its Constitution describes a denomination, not an association), but they don't necessarily allow congregationalism's disorderliness. (That said, there should be elements in any and every Church's organization and relationships that would probably be deemed "Congregational" by most.)
There are also Arminian baptists, not a few stemming from anabaptist roots. There is the factious and proud arminian "Landmarkism" (a schismatic sect), such that there are groups called "Landmark Baptists" (another name is "Missionary Baptists"). There are "Southern Baptists", but this group is a great admixture of opposing views, goods, heresies...its historical teaching roots are in the Reformed Camp, as documentation shows, but with the waning of those doctrinal roots it has become not only the largest, one of the most mocked groups ever to call itself Christian: thankfully there are faithful ministers therein, however, striving in the good fight for the faith to overturn its departures. (Such as those who write for Founders.org and Founders blog.)
I write this because the term "baptist" is now associated with much disorderliness, nonsense, and what is outlandish. Unthinking, anti-intellectual, ascerbic-preaching, etc.. But it would be like accusing, throwing-together, all "paedobaptists" and giving them ridicule because the pope of Rome bedecked with glass lady-slippers, elaborate dress, (anyone want a jewel-studded chaucible, i.e. poncho, anyone?), and a gold and jeweled emperor's scepter makes for one of the most entertaining displays worthy of mockery ever to "grace" the human experience; a man claiming to be Christ's substitute and representative on earth, the Man who "had no comeliness", supposedly represented by that lavish and pompous head of that notorious and odious-to-the-sheep institution. Why would those who proclaim that there is no other name by which we must be saved than Jesus's be associated with those who teach that for salvation all who have the opportunity to know about the Pope must submit and be subject to the Pope? Why would those who preach the truth, that Christ is the head of the Church, not only in Heaven, but on Earth, be associated with he who declares himself the Church's earthly head?
So why, then, do people group "the baptists", when similar chasms of difference exist between certain groups? Why would the RB's who love and yet have mutual support with their Presbyterian brethren (though often RB's are also despised in one way or another by Presbyterians, example here) be grouped with the factious and ridiculous offshoots of Landmarkism? Why would the ambiguous heterodoctrinal Southern Baptist Convention be altogether associated with either of those?
The sad part of the term "baptist", is that it is associated with so much, and used so ambiguously. When used people think of "the baptists", but "the baptists" is a name applied to a broad and diverse range of people with varying beliefs. All evangelicals that do not baptize infants (kids fine, but not infants) are "baptists", using the proper definition of what the term designates!
There are "baptists" who are as different from one another as Roman Catholics from Conservative, Confessional Presbyterians. In fact, Reformed Baptists ("RB's") typically differ from Presbyterians only in that RB's reject (1) paedobaptism and the teachings associated with it, such as assumed/presumed regeneration of believers' children as unbiblical, anti-evangelical, and contrary to Christ, and also, (2) the failure of to recognize that the New Covenant has a discontinuity from the old, the law written on the heart of believers, and that community being composed only of such inscribed individuals (which is biblical), (3) the dominionist-like "magisterial" elements of the Westminster Confession. RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism found in Presbyterianism through the "continuity" sought with the Anglican's Church's 39 articles, which themselves sought to preserve a "Continuity" with the Church's thoroughly Roman past. (4) RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism in Reformed camps in the form of remaining Sacramentalism, especially in the form of "administering" the fuzzily-defined "means of grace": RB's, unlike Presbys-through-Rome, are perfectly willing to just sit-down and break bread in remembrance of the Lord (though still taking it seriously, of course), without the presence of the supposedly needed "properly ordained minister" to "administer" [God's] grace. In government, however, RB's are usually (for all practical purposes) Presbyterian without the addition of a bunch of supraecclesial levels beyond the individuals congregations, that is, they associate, not denominate (ARBCA is the exception--its Constitution describes a denomination, not an association), but they don't necessarily allow congregationalism's disorderliness. (That said, there should be elements in any and every Church's organization and relationships that would probably be deemed "Congregational" by most.)
There are also Arminian baptists, not a few stemming from anabaptist roots. There is the factious and proud arminian "Landmarkism" (a schismatic sect), such that there are groups called "Landmark Baptists" (another name is "Missionary Baptists"). There are "Southern Baptists", but this group is a great admixture of opposing views, goods, heresies...its historical teaching roots are in the Reformed Camp, as documentation shows, but with the waning of those doctrinal roots it has become not only the largest, one of the most mocked groups ever to call itself Christian: thankfully there are faithful ministers therein, however, striving in the good fight for the faith to overturn its departures. (Such as those who write for Founders.org and Founders blog.)
I write this because the term "baptist" is now associated with much disorderliness, nonsense, and what is outlandish. Unthinking, anti-intellectual, ascerbic-preaching, etc.. But it would be like accusing, throwing-together, all "paedobaptists" and giving them ridicule because the pope of Rome bedecked with glass lady-slippers, elaborate dress, (anyone want a jewel-studded chaucible, i.e. poncho, anyone?), and a gold and jeweled emperor's scepter makes for one of the most entertaining displays worthy of mockery ever to "grace" the human experience; a man claiming to be Christ's substitute and representative on earth, the Man who "had no comeliness", supposedly represented by that lavish and pompous head of that notorious and odious-to-the-sheep institution. Why would those who proclaim that there is no other name by which we must be saved than Jesus's be associated with those who teach that for salvation all who have the opportunity to know about the Pope must submit and be subject to the Pope? Why would those who preach the truth, that Christ is the head of the Church, not only in Heaven, but on Earth, be associated with he who declares himself the Church's earthly head?
So why, then, do people group "the baptists", when similar chasms of difference exist between certain groups? Why would the RB's who love and yet have mutual support with their Presbyterian brethren (though often RB's are also despised in one way or another by Presbyterians, example here) be grouped with the factious and ridiculous offshoots of Landmarkism? Why would the ambiguous heterodoctrinal Southern Baptist Convention be altogether associated with either of those?
Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament
Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.
Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes1 his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.
Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.
I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not solely for Arminian or -like tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.
Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes1 his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.
Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.
I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not solely for Arminian or -like tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
We are all imitators
Something that should humble us is that in some of the most important things in life, we are mere imitators. We learn from those we see, or who've gone before, etc., doing as they do.
We might seem to be original as we abstract atop our observations, combine and compare them, infer from them, reapply them, or (more usually) mix and mis/match them, but in the end: still imitators.
"But we ought be original", so you might say...but I want very much to learn from masters, to imitate the kind and benevolent, the faithful and salty, those who walk in light. There are many men to imitate, but the rule and measure, and the one to follow most of all, is Christ Himself, and foremost Him.
A Christian is not so much interested in all originality. There is little likelihood of success, in Biblical terms, if one decides to "be original" in one's approach in marriage, doctrines, holiness, etc.. In none of these does a man want to be novel. Of course presentation of things may vary--as original as thoughts may become in a society, or as the teachings of wolves become, do we have to be in spying the duplicity, and connecting the taken (read, captives/captivated) again to the old truth by shining it as light on the darkness they've received; therefrom we do something very unoriginal, just as our predecessors did repeatedly, we shepherd (whether by authority in the word and in preaching, or in lowly example of our own walks), them back to the old truth, the ancient paths, and warn our brothers, "abide therein".
We might seem to be original as we abstract atop our observations, combine and compare them, infer from them, reapply them, or (more usually) mix and mis/match them, but in the end: still imitators.
"But we ought be original", so you might say...but I want very much to learn from masters, to imitate the kind and benevolent, the faithful and salty, those who walk in light. There are many men to imitate, but the rule and measure, and the one to follow most of all, is Christ Himself, and foremost Him.
A Christian is not so much interested in all originality. There is little likelihood of success, in Biblical terms, if one decides to "be original" in one's approach in marriage, doctrines, holiness, etc.. In none of these does a man want to be novel. Of course presentation of things may vary--as original as thoughts may become in a society, or as the teachings of wolves become, do we have to be in spying the duplicity, and connecting the taken (read, captives/captivated) again to the old truth by shining it as light on the darkness they've received; therefrom we do something very unoriginal, just as our predecessors did repeatedly, we shepherd (whether by authority in the word and in preaching, or in lowly example of our own walks), them back to the old truth, the ancient paths, and warn our brothers, "abide therein".
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The woods and promises
Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum is a novel blog by "Cambria" shaping-up here. This post has a quote by C. S. Lewis that invoked a memory of an old favorite:
I have to check from the book, when I get home, that I have the words right. And on the topic of promises, a lovely song with a virtuous theme (the video not important).
I know it's probably odd to write a not-so-serious post from a reminder stoked by such as serious post as the one with Lewis's quote on a blog titled "Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum". Isn't that the human mind, however, making connections? In this case being stoked to thoughts of a poem, which stoked memory of a song, two uninspired (by God, that is) works of art that are from the world, (though they their sentiments are arguably noble and unreproachable). :)
So on that note, there's a lot about "culture and Christ", and it's a subject I've had to deal with very personally, think about, etc., because of a Church with which I was involved and its teachings (I'm not now, which should give a hint). What I'll say to start is, Christians should be preaching God's word, Christ's teaching, and not founding entire sermons on cultural artifacts just to seem relevant. That's all, for now...
As to the subject Cambria is touching on, it is one of great interest to people: it is one which men with arduously attempt to philosophize to excuse God for the "criminal" behavior of saving some and not others: not a few people upon insisting that He does, indeed, neither save all, nor has to try, have said they could not worship that God, that I'd made Him into some terrible wicked thing (these are Christians). I understand from where they come from, but I cannot reconcile that place with Scripture, a place that reminds me of a Campus Crusade[r]'s testimony, who was taught inductive study, applied it to Romans 9, and became Reformed! thereafter--a stark rejection of Crusade's blatant Arminianism, if not Semi-Pelagianism, (something going by the name of the former quite often these days). I also think I've been guilty before, in this area, of simpletonism, such that I didn't recognize the difference of categories that in precise terms fall under such names as "volition", "agency", etc..
Anyway, a decent reply for those who protest that God would be a monster if He didn't want to save all, along such lines as "then he's making evil", or "[dot, dot, dot]" (strange because they start protesting along these lines, but we are, indeed, born evil, and it has nothing to do with their real item of protest--the supposed unfairness of saving some and not others), is simply pointing to Romans 9:20,
What's funny about this, unlike the Christian philosophizers, is that it never attempts to defend God, His goodness is left unimpugned, assumed. One interesting blogger I know of There's a (but which I don't link to due to some troubling points in what the guy teaches1), I once saw write an excellently essay demonstrating the inaccessibility and mystery of God's wisdom as revealed in the book of Job: I highly recommend that book (Job) on this subject.
--
1 The guy is one who'll make statements such as he know that the NT forbids women from teaching men, but in practice it is different, he says, since he's experience being blessed by the preaching of a female presbyter: he justifies all sorts of deviations from the word by stating things like the meaning/intent of the Biblical text, and application, are two different things, though very often the application is actually what he's challenging. A pastor who I have found so often to demonstrate excellent judgment, sober and prudent, had this to say (from personal familiarity of that other blogger's writing/teaching),
I mention him at all because he's the guy who pointed-out Job in this capacity, and to acknowledge that I am very, like many my age, dependent upon teachers.
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
~Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening, by Robert Frost
I have to check from the book, when I get home, that I have the words right. And on the topic of promises, a lovely song with a virtuous theme (the video not important).
I know it's probably odd to write a not-so-serious post from a reminder stoked by such as serious post as the one with Lewis's quote on a blog titled "Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum". Isn't that the human mind, however, making connections? In this case being stoked to thoughts of a poem, which stoked memory of a song, two uninspired (by God, that is) works of art that are from the world, (though they their sentiments are arguably noble and unreproachable). :)
So on that note, there's a lot about "culture and Christ", and it's a subject I've had to deal with very personally, think about, etc., because of a Church with which I was involved and its teachings (I'm not now, which should give a hint). What I'll say to start is, Christians should be preaching God's word, Christ's teaching, and not founding entire sermons on cultural artifacts just to seem relevant. That's all, for now...
As to the subject Cambria is touching on, it is one of great interest to people: it is one which men with arduously attempt to philosophize to excuse God for the "criminal" behavior of saving some and not others: not a few people upon insisting that He does, indeed, neither save all, nor has to try, have said they could not worship that God, that I'd made Him into some terrible wicked thing (these are Christians). I understand from where they come from, but I cannot reconcile that place with Scripture, a place that reminds me of a Campus Crusade[r]'s testimony, who was taught inductive study, applied it to Romans 9, and became Reformed! thereafter--a stark rejection of Crusade's blatant Arminianism, if not Semi-Pelagianism, (something going by the name of the former quite often these days). I also think I've been guilty before, in this area, of simpletonism, such that I didn't recognize the difference of categories that in precise terms fall under such names as "volition", "agency", etc..
Anyway, a decent reply for those who protest that God would be a monster if He didn't want to save all, along such lines as "then he's making evil", or "[dot, dot, dot]" (strange because they start protesting along these lines, but we are, indeed, born evil, and it has nothing to do with their real item of protest--the supposed unfairness of saving some and not others), is simply pointing to Romans 9:20,
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?"
What's funny about this, unlike the Christian philosophizers, is that it never attempts to defend God, His goodness is left unimpugned, assumed. One interesting blogger I know of There's a (but which I don't link to due to some troubling points in what the guy teaches1), I once saw write an excellently essay demonstrating the inaccessibility and mystery of God's wisdom as revealed in the book of Job: I highly recommend that book (Job) on this subject.
--
1 The guy is one who'll make statements such as he know that the NT forbids women from teaching men, but in practice it is different, he says, since he's experience being blessed by the preaching of a female presbyter: he justifies all sorts of deviations from the word by stating things like the meaning/intent of the Biblical text, and application, are two different things, though very often the application is actually what he's challenging. A pastor who I have found so often to demonstrate excellent judgment, sober and prudent, had this to say (from personal familiarity of that other blogger's writing/teaching),
"My impression of [...] is that he is more or less an old-fashioned "neo-orthodox" liberal. Up until about 1960, liberal biblical scholars did not usually pretend that the Bible supported all their liberal beliefs. They did tend to focus on things that they agreed with in the Bible, while keeping quiet about things they couldn't agree with, but when pressed on some point they usually just admitted that they didn't care much for what the Bible has to say about some things. That's where this guy is coming from. He wants people to appreciate certain things in the Bible that he likes.
After reading his blog for a couple of weeks some time ago, I stopped paying any attention to him. He is always trying hard to sound like some very profound and intellectual "maverick" theologian, sort of neo-neo-orthodox. But he seems to lack any real faith in the Word of God.
I mention him at all because he's the guy who pointed-out Job in this capacity, and to acknowledge that I am very, like many my age, dependent upon teachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
