Skip to content

Faith, or faith?

I’ve been listening to Phillip Cary’s series Luther: Gospel, Law and Reformation from The Teaching Company.  As I’ve said before, I was raised Lutheran (what used to be the LCA Synod). When I was 12 or so, I learned Reformation history as part of my confirmation classes (Can you believe 2 years of study in order to be confirmed?  What an amazing education!). But, though I remember some of it (the Diet of Worms always stands out), 12 was a long time ago.

Although I’ve read some here or there over the years (and watched the movie Luther a few times), I am just now getting what I feel is a half decent grasp of what really went on during the Reformation and the theological issues involved. And, besides understanding Luther better, I’m also getting a bit better grasp on Calvin, Zwingli and the other heretics Reformed crowd.

We are not to rest on our faith

While C and Z agreed with the Lutherans on the three major solas (sola fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura), Lutheran theology sets itself apart by maintaining that even though we are saved by faith alone (sola fide), we are not to depend on our faith.

Luther’s thinking here is, I think, nothing short of brilliant. If we somehow start to think that our faith saves us, it raises the question, “how much faith is enough?”  Did we really believe, or did we only think we believed? Perhaps we should get baptized again, just in case. This could go on indefinitely as we try to determine if our faith was good enough.

For Luther, the point was that we can never believe enough. What is important is that God’s word—which is external to us—is true, and we simply have to believe it. It is God’s Word that saves us, we simply have to put our faith in that, not in our own ability to “have faith.” In talking about baptism, Luther wrote,

We are not to base baptism on faith. Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith is not only uncertain, but also an idolater who denies Christ, for he trusts in and builds on something of his own rather than on God’s word alone.

This concept permeates all of Luther’s thinking. Rather than placing importance on some inward decision or emotion, what is truly important is what God said.

Upon which Rock?

Our feelings change. There are days when I feel way more “saved” than on other days. Some days I feel full of faith. Other times I may be plagued with doubt. So what has changed?  Nothing, except my emotions. Do I depend on the sincerity of my prayers, or upon God’s Word that Christ has died for my sins?

In response to Peter’s proclamation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” Jesus said, “… upon this rock, I will build my church.”  Peter, obviously, was never an unwavering rock—at least according to what we know in the New Testament. The “rock” is the unwavering reality of God’s Word as spoken here by Peter.

Luther seems to have been a lot like Peter, up one day and down the next. I expect they both finally discovered the truth: What is unchanging is God’s Word, and upon this rock, we can have faith.

Written on 13 April 2011 by me under Theological Musings with 4 Comments

Rob Bell’s confession of faith

This is worth sharing, considering all of the hoopla about Rob Bell’s book Love Wins:

Thanks to Scot McKnight for sharing this.

Written on 08 April 2011 by me under Politics/Current Events, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Bart Ehrman forges on in Forged

Bart Ehrman intrigues me. Here’s a guy who apparently could do real research and perhaps even add something to the discussion of Biblical and extra-Biblical writings, but he doesn’t.

It seems to me that he is being purposefully deceptive (i.e. he lies). An alternate theory is that he is really quite clueless, but is able to market himself to publishers and others who are similarly clueless. Or, … well, I can’t really think of any other options at the moment. I don’t want to presume that he’s being intentionally deceptive, but he does seem smart enough to know what he’s saying isn’t correct.

Forged is Ehrman’s latest offering, continuing on in the tradition of really bad scholarship that he’s shown in Jesus, Interrupted and other books.

I haven’t read Forged, however, and I’m not planning to. I’ve read enough of his stuff to know how he writes, so when I read in-depth reviews by people like Ben Witherington, who is a real Biblical scholar, I know enough about the book. So, this post isn’t a review by me, but rather a recommendation to check out Witherington’s series on the book.

In the post linked to above, Witherington comments on Ehrman’s “scholarship:”

Bart, is actually swimming against the tide of the scholarship, even on the Pastorals.   And here I must register a big complaint.   Look at the footnotes to Chapter Three.   Do we find any evidence at all that Bart has even read a broad and representative sampling of commentaries on Paul’s letters, or even on the Pastorals?   No, we do not.  Maybe he has,  but his views only match up with a sort of cherry-picking approach to the scholarship, highly selective in character, and tendentiously favoring only the more radical or controversial commentators on Paul.   It is also worth noting that he relies heavily on the older scholarship  of A.N. Harrison or N. Brox or the eccentric work of  D. MacDonald.   But this older scholarship has long since been critiqued, and largely discarded as inadequate.   Bart however trots it out as if: 1) it was news, and 2) such conclusions would go unchallenged today by the majority of scholars.   Wrong, and wrong.

Witherington agrees with him on many points, as he discusses forgeries that everyone believes are forgeries. It is when he moves into Canonical documents that the problems arise.

Ehrman seems to approach his writing along the lines of a hack journalist, who is more interested in selling his position (and his books) than actually reporting the truth (of course, these days this description could apply to the majority of what passes for journalism). He is, perhaps, the Rush Limbaugh of liberal Biblical scholarship. He tells a good story; the problem comes in when you start fact-checking.

You can read parts 1 and 2 of Witherington’s analysis here and here.

Written on 06 April 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with No Comments

Ten things you should do to [insert goal here]

I subscribe to a lot of blogs. Too many to read, actually. I usually just scroll down the list in Google Reader, looking at the titles to see if they look worth my time. A few I will actually take the time to skim. Fewer still will I actually read. And very few do I ever read all the way through. (However, I know you all will read this blog all the way through, because you not like those other people…)

I subscribe to some blogs merely for pleasure or to make me think about things. Many I  subscribe to for a specific purpose. Some of the blogs are geared toward getting hired, some are focused on business development, others on personal development, and others dedicated to philosophy or theology. I also subscribe to a number of blogs who claim to be able to improve my photography skills, or to make me a better writer/blogger.

Why I hate many of them, but keep reading them anyway

I have found that many of them simply want something from me. It’s like having a friend who’s been sucked in to a multi-level marketing scheme. Suddenly, you aren’t just a friend, you’re a prospect. The same thinking goes for many blogs. Whether you like it or not, if you stop to read the blog, you’re a prospect, and some kind of response from you is expected. How do I know? Because some of the blogs I read about being better bloggers tell me I should be doing this, too.

Another thing bloggers want us to do is to keep coming back. The trick is to give away just enough potentially valuable information to overcome people’s frustration. But, in order to to find any valuable information, you have to read through the day’s list of five, seven or even ten things you must do to improve what you’re doing.

Often, there’s nothing there of any substance.

5 reasons why you’re not succeeding

The worst offenders are the blogs who post negative lists, telling you why you are failing at whatever you are doing—and presumably, why you need to keep coming back to their blog.

The fallacy behind all of these lists—whether positive or negative—is the thinking that if you could follow the list to the letter, you would have results. A secondary fallacy is making the assumption they want you to make, which is that the goal they claim you should have is indeed the goal you should have.

Again, this is all a trick so you’ll keep coming back.

Finding freedom

I am “all about” freedom. You just have to read the front of my book to see that. (notice how I slipped that little plug in there with a link to Amazon?) To find freedom in the world of how-to blogs, you have to realize things like

  • There is no one right way to write a resume, and following this list or that list will not get you hired.
  • There are no five steps to financial freedom.
  • There are very, very few real secrets to anything.

Now, to be really free, you should be able to read somone’s list of things you should do, and pick out one or two that may be helpful while tossing the rest. You must be able to unsubscribe to a blog which you find is little more than a scam. You must know deep down in your heart that if there are really 5 steps to financial freedom, Joe Schmoe wouldn’t care about wasting time writing a blog.

Good blog

There are good blogs, and some really great blogs.   Typically they present ideas or information, allow for discussion, and give the reader freedom to respond or not respond. They cite personal experience, both good and bad. They occasionally challenge their readers. They allow the reader to fail, without feeling bad. They treat their audience with respect, as equals. They dare to break the “8 rules of good blogging.” (FYI, I’m breaking some right now!)

Where the rubber meets the road

Now, if you really want to get control of your blog subscriptions, here are 10 things you all should be doing…

Written on 30 March 2011 by me under Random Thoughts with 5 Comments

Martin Luther on the current state of over-sensitivity

“The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretense, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, and intemperance to our adversaries.” ~Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, 1520

So, it seems there really is nothing new under the sun.

Written on 29 March 2011 by me under Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts with 1 Comment

Can I blame God for this blog?

I just finished reading a short blog post about worship by a guy who considers himself a theologian. It was an interesting post, but the guy doesn’t seem to understand worship at all—he seems to think that worship is about our attitude, and what we do and say. But, this is not why I wrote this post. In fact, the statement, “This is not why I wrote this post,” is precisely why I wrote this post. Let me explain…

I was reading the aforementioned blog post, the writer included a brief autobiography as it concerned his topic. What caught my attention and pretty much derailed my train of thought was when he began a paragraph with, “The Lord then led me to Dallas Theological Seminary.”

My first thought was something like, I doubt the Lord leads anyone to Dallas Theological Seminary (sorry, I couldn’t resist—I’ve never been a big DTS fan). The question that really did preempt any thinking about worship was “Did God really lead him to that school, or was it simply his decision?”

God told me… or did I just want to?

I’ve known hundreds of people over the years who routinely say, “God told me …” or “God led me …” It’s nearly become a figure of speech rather than the theological statement it is. And, when it’s apparent that it was a poor decision, they fall back on “God must have a reason.”

Did God really lead him to that school, or was he simply avoiding taking any personal responsibility for his decision?

Now, it could be that looking back, he can see how God blessed his time at DTS; perhaps he met his wife there, or had some other experience or opportunity that was unique to that place.  However, my question is still, “did God lead him to DTS, or did God simply bless his own decision?”

I’m not sure that there’s practical difference between the two.  I heard once that to the ancient Jewish worldview, there was no difference between “God caused” and “God allowed,” and that if something happened, it was presumed that God had allowed/caused it. I suspect it’s something of a combination. I doubt that God has determined everything or even has a “perfect will” about everything. On the other hand, I believe that some things are determined. Does it really matter which are which?

How to screw up your life

One way to really screw up your life is to adopt the belief that God has perfect plan for our lives that includes relatively minor details, but yet that God has given us free will to mess up his plan. Marriages, for example, can get really messed up if one partner thinks they may have missed God’s “perfect will” and married the wrong spouse. Some even use it to justify divorce. This kind of thinking is guaranteed to make us miserable, if not downright schizophrenic.

Don’t be afraid of making bad decisions

My own opinion is that “the one” doesn’t exist. I believe that God’s plan for us is big enough to cover all possible contingencies. Hence, Romans 8:32, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him…”

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be wise; after all, God’s given us tons of wisdom in the Bible, and has offered to give us even more (James 1:5). What it does mean is that if we are stupid, God will work good in that, too.

If it helps, think of it this way: You couldn’t make a perfect decision if your life depended on it. There, now the pressure’s off. Just make the best and wisest decisions you can, and trust God to do his thing. God has already “given us all things pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), so have a little faith and go for it. Go to DTS, even.

 

Written on 29 March 2011 by me under Random Thoughts with 3 Comments

Orthodox hell and the Scarlet Rob Bell

The Eastern (Orthodox) church has been thinking about hell a lot longer than anyone else, simply because they’ve been around the longest. Yes, there were Christians before Augustine. However, very few western evangelicals (of the post-liturgical variety) care about what the early church (post-Canon) thinks. After all, they didn’t have the benefit of the Enlightenment, and they didn’t all jump into line behind Augustine (who falls into the category of “Nice guy, but possibly a heretic”).

Yes, I’m being facetious.

What the Orthodox believe about hell

Apparently one or two people in the west are becoming interested in what the Orthodox believe about hell, possibly looking for more votes. Scot McKnight actually references a book of Orthodox theology in his post today, Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. I confess I’m not familiar with the Archbishop, but it sounds quite interesting. I like reading Orthodox theology; it certainly provides a fresh perspective.

McKnight provides some notes taken from the book (bullet-points are mine, for the sake of readability):

  • Irenaeus is typical in seeing both the descent and a release of the patriarchs, prophets and saints from the Old Testament period.
  • Hippolytus: John the Baptist also descended to preach to those in hades.
  • Clement of Alexandria: Christ descended and preached to the saints and to the Gentiles who lived outside the true faith. Hell for him was a place of reformation. Origen is like Clement, but emphasizes human choice.
  • Issue: how to define the various terms, but many saw places. That is, there’s Abraham’s bosom, and hell, and hades, and a prison.
  • Athanasius: leans, at times, toward the universal redemption or release from death. The famous text “Christus patiens,” attributed by some to Gregory Nazianzen, poetically sketches a universal release of the dead through the descent. Cyril of Alexandria follows this line of thinking; so does Maximus the Confessor.
  • Many are somewhat ambivalent or clearly believe Jesus’ release was only for the saints, and an example is St John Chrysostom. John Damascene emphasizes human choice by those in the realm of the dead and so not all are liberated. St Jerome is in this camp of saying at times that all are liberated but other times not all are liberated.
  • A decisive voice in this issue, especially in the West, was Augustine who believed in both a descent but not all in a “second chance”. For Augustine, death was final and the only ones in hades who were released were those who were predestined in God’s elective grace. What is interesting, though, is that Augustine was clearly battling many who did think Christ emptied hades and death and hell of all its inhabitants. Gregory the Great completed the Augustinian perspective.
  • Alfayev emphasizes that the Eastern fathers did not spell things out the way the Western fathers did.

It’s an interesting post. As I think I have mentioned here in the last couple of weeks, the Orthodox generally believe that everyone will end up in God’s presence; however, those opposed to God will have a negative experience (not unlike that painted by CS Lewis in The Great Divorce).

The Scarlett Rob Bell

Rob Bell, meanwhile, continues to get roasted from nearly all sides. Even Lutherans are condemning him. So, this morning I wrote him a little poem:

Everybody’s picking on poor Rob Bell.
However, his book will surely sell.
But is he in heaven, or is he in hell?
That [darned] illusive Mr. Bell.

To more accurately parody The Scarlett Pimpernel, you could change it to:

They judge him here, they judge him there,
But his book is selling everywhere.
Is he in heaven, or is he in hell?
That [darned] illusive Mr. Bell.

Or not.

Written on 16 March 2011 by me under Exploring the Twain, Humor and/or Sarcasm, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Common Descent and the leap of faith

There’s an interesting story yesterday at Evolution News & Views that shows that scientists are not necessarily in agreement with the so-called “tree of life,” not to be confused with this one. (In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that “Evolution News & Views” appears to be an ID-oriented site, perhaps associated with the Discovery Institute, which is routinely dismissed by evolutionists similar to the way President Obama dismisses Fox News. I have no particular allegiance to them or to any particular view of ID.)

By the accounts of some evolutionists, you would be led to believe that “common descent,” the theory that all of earth’s life forms evolved from the same source, and are thus all related. Even Francis Collins, the Christian scientist who headed the Human Genome Project and the author of “The Language of God,” believes in Common Descent.

In support of Common Descent, Richard Dawkins has stated (as quoted in the article) that “the genetic code is universal … (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization).”

Trouble in paradise?

However, there appear to be no less than seventeen variations of the genetic code, some of which are completely incompatible with the others. J. Craig Venter, himself a recognized expert on the human genome, recently stated, “The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”

The article is, of course, not conclusive, it just reports on the recent dialog at Arizona State Univ. that involved Dawkins and Venter (there’s a link to a video of the discussion, if you’re interested). What it shows is that the scientific data must be interpreted; that is, it is not necessarily conclusive. One must line up the evidence, and then make at least a small  jump to a conclusion.

Highly intelligent and educated minds can reach different conclusions, as they must decide which data to give more weight, and which data to disregard. Dawkins has perhaps downplayed or ignored the incompatibilities between the 17 variations of the genetic code, and Venter has perhaps given them too much weight—who knows? Once again, scientific conclusions show themselves to have some subjective components, bearing a remarkable similarity to a “leap of faith.”

How do we decide where to leap?

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that I do not believe that one can use Intelligent Design arguments to prove the existence of God. However, if one presumes the existence of God, then elements of design will become evident. Furthermore, while evidence of design may not be conclusive, it can certainly point to the possibility of a common designer, in the same way that a newly-discovered painting can have indications that it is a Rembrandt.

Assuming the existence of God as the creator of all life, is a universal genetic code surprising, whether or not there are some variations? The 17 versions of the genetic code may be an impediment to common descent, but not to a common source, or a common designer. Whether we look to Mars or to Heaven, it requires we make a leap of faith.

 

 

 

Written on 10 March 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 2 Comments

Defining Worship

I’ve written a little about worship in the past. As someone who’s “been around the block” with regard to worship, I have often voiced that much of what happens under the guise of worship is not really worship (and thereby admitting that some of my own concepts of worship were not accurate, or at least adequate).

Today, Pastor Matt Richard posted a great, Biblical definition of worship entitled Worship: It Is About Receiving God’s Best, Not Giving Ours, quoting from another church’s statement on worship:

It has often been taught that we speak to God in worship; that we summon his presence and offer Him praise. This view sees God as the audience of our worship. However, this is a pagan concept of worship. In pagan worship, the worshiper comes before his or her god to bring offerings and to present requests in order to please the particular god and get the god to respond to the worshiper in the way the worshiper desires. (Lev. 10:1-3; Jer. 32:35; Ps. 78:56-59)

Christian worship is the exact opposite. God is the speaker. We are the audience. He has called and invited us before Him; He has called and invited us before Him together so that He can talk with us. In both the Old and New Testament worship God’s Word, that speaks to us, is central to the gathering. (Ex. 29:42; Neh. 9:1-4; Acts 2:14-47)

God speaks and we listen and respond. Through His Word, the Bible, God shows His character and His works. He speaks to us about our sin and about the way of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.

This is how grace works in worship. Many people have turned worship into another performance-based activity by which we can judge ourselves (or others). Was our attitude right? Did we focus appropriately? Did we get to caught up in the music? Are we worshipping with our hearts, or just our heads? If we’re asking these kinds of questions, I think we’ve turned worship around.

Here’s a way to judge worship: Who is doing the speaking?

Written on 09 March 2011 by me under Church with 1 Comment

Apparently I need more coffee …

Today Mark Stevens at Near Emmaus writes:

OK, so maybe I have a small problem. I need your help. Please be honest. Do I have a drinking problem? Today, I stopped for a coffee on the way to meeting someone for a coffee. Does this mean I have an addiction? Nah, I didn’t think so…

He then links to 5 health reasons to not quit coffee, an article by the editors of Living Well magazine, for which I will be eternally grateful.  I hate to think of how unhealthy I could be had I not been drinking copious amounts of coffee for the last 35 years.

Ooops, Gotta run… it’s coffee time.

Written on 08 March 2011 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments