Faith, or faith?

Posted on April 13, 2011 by me

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.

Posted in Theological Musings | 4 Comments

Rob Bell’s confession of faith

Posted on April 8, 2011 by me

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

Thanks to Scot McKnight for sharing this.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, Theological Musings | 2 Comments

Bart Ehrman forges on in Forged

Posted on April 6, 2011 by me

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.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | Leave a comment

Ten things you should do to [insert goal here]

Posted on March 30, 2011 by me

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…

Posted in Random Thoughts | 5 Comments