Only God knows.
Ok, having got that out of the way, Internet Monk has an excellent post reflecting on how God can seem distant sometimes. In that post, he references a review of the new book revealing Mother Teresa's own spiritual troubles.
These letters are highly personal, and selected from times of confession and vulnerability. So we can't form an opinion from them.
But they can serve as an example for when we "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5a). If someone I knew, claiming to be a Christian, said these things to me, what would I think?
She says some disconcerting things, "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" She claimed to have heard Jesus talking to her.
The question is, did she do what she did out of gratitude for what God had done for her? Or did she do what she did in order to try to earn God's favor (or some burden of debt)?
A similar question is, why does the world respect her? Because of her dedication to God? Or because she was "better" than anyone else at doing good works?
What is the example of her life? Is she someone to idolize? (while seeing her standard as impossible to reach, so we don't even try?)
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Law
My last post might seem to come down pretty hard on God's law. I have actually been summarizing Paul's comments. So let me move to Galatians 3:21a, "[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid".
So what is the purpose of the Law? It is not (directly) for our salvation. This is the misunderstanding of the legalist.
Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul". Galatians 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." And there it is.
The Law has been compared to a mirror, which shows us our true selves. Our self-image is one of self-righteousness. "I am a good person." "I am much better than most people." "I'm not a murderer." "I try to live a good life." "Of course God loves me, I'm great!"
But when we look into the Law, we discover we are not good in God's sight. God sees everything we've done, and all our thoughts. Jesus said it is our thoughts which make us unclean, even more than deeds. Because our thoughts determine who we are.
Romans 3:12b "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
If we agree with God that we are not good, we see our need for a savior. If we humble ourselves, cry out to God for what we have done, turn our backs on our old lives, and trust in Jesus to save us -- we can be saved.
So what is the purpose of the Law? It is not (directly) for our salvation. This is the misunderstanding of the legalist.
Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul". Galatians 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." And there it is.
The Law has been compared to a mirror, which shows us our true selves. Our self-image is one of self-righteousness. "I am a good person." "I am much better than most people." "I'm not a murderer." "I try to live a good life." "Of course God loves me, I'm great!"
But when we look into the Law, we discover we are not good in God's sight. God sees everything we've done, and all our thoughts. Jesus said it is our thoughts which make us unclean, even more than deeds. Because our thoughts determine who we are.
Romans 3:12b "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
If we agree with God that we are not good, we see our need for a savior. If we humble ourselves, cry out to God for what we have done, turn our backs on our old lives, and trust in Jesus to save us -- we can be saved.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Legalism vs. Antimonialism
Antimonialism is an old word you don't hear very often. Literally, it is "against the law". It is characterized by people who believe they do not need to change their lives as a Christian. These people deny the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and live in sin, contradicting their statements of faith.
Legalism is the opposite extreme. A legalist raises our works (actions) to the point of salvation. In other words, "follow our rules or you're not saved". We are all born under the crushing weight of the Law. A burden which we cannot carry, which ultimately leads to death. When we are saved, we are released from this burden. The legalist returns to this burden.
The Bible makes it clear the proper course is through the middle. Our lives are too complicated to be governed by a set of rules. As Christians, we have freedom. But not everything is good for us. And we must not use our freedom to cause others to stumble or to keep people from hearing the Good News. At the same time, we must place God's will first. We know His will by being steeped in His Word, and applying Biblical principles. We should not be breaking the Ten Commandments. We should be loving others.
Legalism is the opposite extreme. A legalist raises our works (actions) to the point of salvation. In other words, "follow our rules or you're not saved". We are all born under the crushing weight of the Law. A burden which we cannot carry, which ultimately leads to death. When we are saved, we are released from this burden. The legalist returns to this burden.
The Bible makes it clear the proper course is through the middle. Our lives are too complicated to be governed by a set of rules. As Christians, we have freedom. But not everything is good for us. And we must not use our freedom to cause others to stumble or to keep people from hearing the Good News. At the same time, we must place God's will first. We know His will by being steeped in His Word, and applying Biblical principles. We should not be breaking the Ten Commandments. We should be loving others.
Friday, August 17, 2007
New Tag: Tension
This tag will be similar to "Controversy". In a controversy, one side is right and one is wrong, but we can't tell right now. Tension represents a situation with two extremes, where one must maintain the middle road.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The "Problem" of Evil
Some people make the following argument:
1. God is defined as all- powerful, knowing, and good
2. A good being would prevent suffering
3. An all knowing being should come up with a good solution
4. An all powerful being should be able to do anything
5. There is evil and suffering in the world
6. God would prevent evil and suffering
7. Thus, God does not exist
I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5. I strongly disagree with 7. So where is the fallacy?
2 presents real issues for Christianity. Why doesn't god prevent suffering? Similarly, 6, why doesn't God prevent evil? Or be more active healing people?
There is actually a website dedicated to this question. The comments provide a summary of the video presentation.
There is a whole field of theology dedicated to this, known as theodicy.
The main fallacy of this argument is in 2. Yes, suffering is bad, but can good come of it? What is the price of a world without suffering?
I'm not going to deal much with good coming from suffering. Some people, when suffering, turn to God. That is good. But I don't want to say the ends justify the means, because they don't.
What is the price of a world without suffering?
Pain tells us there is something wrong. So too does the suffering in the world. The world was good when God created it, when He was an active part of it. That is not how the world is now. Our ancestors (Adam and Eve) chose to run the world without God. Ever since then God has been separated from the world, and there has been evil, suffering, and death.
So why not create Adam and Eve incapable of sin (not choosing God)? There is an issue of free will. If you are not free to not choose God, there is no meaning in choosing God. Also, without sin, God cannot demonstrate grace, mercy, and justice.
Like it or not, God created the universe to demonstrate His qualities.
1. God is defined as all- powerful, knowing, and good
2. A good being would prevent suffering
3. An all knowing being should come up with a good solution
4. An all powerful being should be able to do anything
5. There is evil and suffering in the world
6. God would prevent evil and suffering
7. Thus, God does not exist
I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5. I strongly disagree with 7. So where is the fallacy?
2 presents real issues for Christianity. Why doesn't god prevent suffering? Similarly, 6, why doesn't God prevent evil? Or be more active healing people?
There is actually a website dedicated to this question. The comments provide a summary of the video presentation.
There is a whole field of theology dedicated to this, known as theodicy.
The main fallacy of this argument is in 2. Yes, suffering is bad, but can good come of it? What is the price of a world without suffering?
I'm not going to deal much with good coming from suffering. Some people, when suffering, turn to God. That is good. But I don't want to say the ends justify the means, because they don't.
What is the price of a world without suffering?
Pain tells us there is something wrong. So too does the suffering in the world. The world was good when God created it, when He was an active part of it. That is not how the world is now. Our ancestors (Adam and Eve) chose to run the world without God. Ever since then God has been separated from the world, and there has been evil, suffering, and death.
So why not create Adam and Eve incapable of sin (not choosing God)? There is an issue of free will. If you are not free to not choose God, there is no meaning in choosing God. Also, without sin, God cannot demonstrate grace, mercy, and justice.
Like it or not, God created the universe to demonstrate His qualities.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The Doctrine of Hell
The doctrine of Hell is arguably one of the most difficult in orthodox Christianity.
But, for a moment consider Christian doctrine as is, without an infinite Hell.
So what happens when sinners die?
1. Heaven (universalism)
2. Dissolution (Jehovah's Witness)
3. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
4. Finite Hell (or Purgatory)
1. Universalism destroys the notion of justice. This is saying unrepentant murderers will be with God in Heaven.
2. Dissolution is nearly as bad. Live your life as please, scoff at God, kill and steal, live it up! When you die, it's all over, but you lived as you pleased. No justice here on Earth, and none from God.
3. Reincarnation. This is just a goto 10. I mean, there has to be a last generation. Either when the great and terrible "Day of the Lord" comes, or at the heat death of the universe (for the amillenialists in the audience). And it's not very just in the near term. I should suffer now for the crimes of some person who died around the time I was born? And what if the global population levels off?
4. Finite Hell. This is very attractive. Probably why the Catholic Church was able to sneak Purgatory past people long ago. But there is a problem if you work it all the way through...
What is the payment for sin? (And conversely, what is the damage done by sin?)
If the payment is finite, then it is something we can earn for ourselves. Either doing some things during life, or some hard time in Hell after. But then, our account is all squared up.
So then, why did Christ die? Some sort of horrible mix up? An unnecessary tragedy? To save a few people some hard time in Hell?
And what is God's nature? Is sin a finite transgression against an infinite being? Or is it an infinite transgression? A finite transgression would appear the same as 0 to an infinite being. So really, no one would need to spend more than a few hours in Hell.
Except, God is infinite. And sin is infinitely offensive to Him. And we need an infinite payment. Christ's death paid that. And for those who reject Him, an eternity in Hell will pay it too (at least, approaching it in the limit).
But, for a moment consider Christian doctrine as is, without an infinite Hell.
So what happens when sinners die?
1. Heaven (universalism)
2. Dissolution (Jehovah's Witness)
3. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
4. Finite Hell (or Purgatory)
1. Universalism destroys the notion of justice. This is saying unrepentant murderers will be with God in Heaven.
2. Dissolution is nearly as bad. Live your life as please, scoff at God, kill and steal, live it up! When you die, it's all over, but you lived as you pleased. No justice here on Earth, and none from God.
3. Reincarnation. This is just a goto 10. I mean, there has to be a last generation. Either when the great and terrible "Day of the Lord" comes, or at the heat death of the universe (for the amillenialists in the audience). And it's not very just in the near term. I should suffer now for the crimes of some person who died around the time I was born? And what if the global population levels off?
4. Finite Hell. This is very attractive. Probably why the Catholic Church was able to sneak Purgatory past people long ago. But there is a problem if you work it all the way through...
What is the payment for sin? (And conversely, what is the damage done by sin?)
If the payment is finite, then it is something we can earn for ourselves. Either doing some things during life, or some hard time in Hell after. But then, our account is all squared up.
So then, why did Christ die? Some sort of horrible mix up? An unnecessary tragedy? To save a few people some hard time in Hell?
And what is God's nature? Is sin a finite transgression against an infinite being? Or is it an infinite transgression? A finite transgression would appear the same as 0 to an infinite being. So really, no one would need to spend more than a few hours in Hell.
Except, God is infinite. And sin is infinitely offensive to Him. And we need an infinite payment. Christ's death paid that. And for those who reject Him, an eternity in Hell will pay it too (at least, approaching it in the limit).
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Book Review
"Misquoting Jesus" (Bart Ehrman). I remembered Ehrman's name from the "Judas Gospel" event a year or two ago. He said, "The reappearance of the Gospel of Judas will rank among the greatest finds from Christian antiquity." This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. But I wasn't going to hold it against him as I read this book.
The title of this book is an excellent example of how titles are chosen for books. Often authors actually have little say, and the title is often chosen to be controversial (and increase sales). In this case, Ehrman never argues that anyone is misquoting Jesus.
The book is actually a layman's introduction to textual criticism (the art and science behind determining the original words of the Bible). In telling this story, Ehrman does an excellent job (although I'm no expert on the history). He makes what could be a very dry topic, lively and interesting. He also verified that the ideas I've had on the subject were covered three hundred years ago.
Ehrman also presents a laundry list of "intentional changes" and the possible motivations behind them. The tone is rather scandalous, and some might be shocked and dismayed. Only problem is, my pocket Bible is called, "New Believer's Bible" New Living Translation Tyndale HousePublishers 1996. Ehrman's book was published in 2005. My Bible has a star next to nearly every verse Ehrman cites. So Christianity has survived at least 9 years of Bibles published with the changes Ehrman recommends!
There is a sadder story behind this book. On page 3 (in the introduction), Ehrman gives his "conversion story". It reads like most of the stories on web sites like "Debunking Christianity". It is clear Ehrman is part of the reaping we are now seeing in response to the sowing of a "puny-fied" Gospel message. Well meaning people talking about love, and a "God-shaped hole in your heart", and not talking about sin and judgment. Seeds sown into rocky ground (Matthew 13:20), at first putting up impressive growth, only to come crashing down. And they will not turn back easily: 2 Peter 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."
Please pray for Mr. Ehrman.
The title of this book is an excellent example of how titles are chosen for books. Often authors actually have little say, and the title is often chosen to be controversial (and increase sales). In this case, Ehrman never argues that anyone is misquoting Jesus.
The book is actually a layman's introduction to textual criticism (the art and science behind determining the original words of the Bible). In telling this story, Ehrman does an excellent job (although I'm no expert on the history). He makes what could be a very dry topic, lively and interesting. He also verified that the ideas I've had on the subject were covered three hundred years ago.
Ehrman also presents a laundry list of "intentional changes" and the possible motivations behind them. The tone is rather scandalous, and some might be shocked and dismayed. Only problem is, my pocket Bible is called, "New Believer's Bible" New Living Translation Tyndale HousePublishers 1996. Ehrman's book was published in 2005. My Bible has a star next to nearly every verse Ehrman cites. So Christianity has survived at least 9 years of Bibles published with the changes Ehrman recommends!
There is a sadder story behind this book. On page 3 (in the introduction), Ehrman gives his "conversion story". It reads like most of the stories on web sites like "Debunking Christianity". It is clear Ehrman is part of the reaping we are now seeing in response to the sowing of a "puny-fied" Gospel message. Well meaning people talking about love, and a "God-shaped hole in your heart", and not talking about sin and judgment. Seeds sown into rocky ground (Matthew 13:20), at first putting up impressive growth, only to come crashing down. And they will not turn back easily: 2 Peter 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."
Please pray for Mr. Ehrman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)