With the NT adopting the Greek-ized form of the saviour's name, the signficance of Joshua taking the people into the promised land is obscured: I prefer to think of the Messiah as Joshua of Nazareth: closer to the truth!
But if we were going to render our Lord's earthly name into contemporary style, it would be as the title of this post: Joshua Davidson! It doesn't quite work liturgically, but there you are!
25 December 2010
20 December 2010
Preaching on Genesis
I've heard a good number of sermons on Genesis 1, a few live, and a few via MP3s. The live ones include those that triggered this blog to start a few years ago: a series on Genesis at my local church.
But I've heard more since then, particularly at the sites linked from this blog.
The MP3 variety have, I must say, been better sermons. They have taken the hearer more to thinking about Christ than the live ones! Perversely, the local sermons, in a 'Bible-believing' evangelical church, did not so take up the challenge with the warmth, passion, logic and drama that the linked ones do.
Have a listen to:
Joseph Pipa on the Doctrine of Creation
Gary Hendrix also on the Doctrine of Creation
Rick Viz, of course, on the Fact of Biblical Creation
But I've heard more since then, particularly at the sites linked from this blog.
The MP3 variety have, I must say, been better sermons. They have taken the hearer more to thinking about Christ than the live ones! Perversely, the local sermons, in a 'Bible-believing' evangelical church, did not so take up the challenge with the warmth, passion, logic and drama that the linked ones do.
Have a listen to:
Joseph Pipa on the Doctrine of Creation
Gary Hendrix also on the Doctrine of Creation
Rick Viz, of course, on the Fact of Biblical Creation
15 December 2010
could have
Surprisingly, even some biblical creationists have claimed that God could have created in a different manner to that which he [told us that he] did. For instance, they say, he could have created in 6 seconds or 6 billion years, if he had wanted to (or instantly, as Augustine averred). This goes alongside the claim that God could have ‘used’ evolution as the means of his creation, which often prepares the way for accepting that he did use evolution (contrary to the direct reading of Genesis 1, and elucidated by Ps 33:9, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 11:3, for instance)!
But, what are we saying here? Are we recognising that God doesn’t act arbitrarily, or capriciously, but that his actions reveal who he is, as Paul teaches in Romans 1:20. Does not the claim above attribute to God, not the glory of the one who is, but the inglory of who he is not, or worse, that of pagan ‘fates’ or ‘spirits’ who in the relevant literature are unpredictable, capricious and have no discernable selfhood or nature?
There are two answers to the question, I think:
Firstly, on the basis of the argument above, the answer is “No, God could not have created in any old way, because he is not a magician who does tricks, but is the almighty creator whose actions, will and nature are unified: he only does what is of him to do, what represents who he is". This is the import of my reference to Romans 1:20. If we say that God didn’t create as he has revealed, as is his nature, representing who he is, but we set that aside and say that he did, or could in principle, create in another way, then we are talking about another identity, not the God of the Bible, the creator of all that is. As Kurt Wise said in a conference address in about 2000, if we say that God created in a way other than he reveals to us, then we are talking about another god! This amounts to backing into blasphemy: not saying that something of the Holy Spirit is not of the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit could be other than he is!
The second answer is that to suppose alternative creative possibilities is idle speculation and doesn’t get us anywhere. One could also speculate that God could not have created at all; then where would we be? Not that creating was necessary, but that it was what God chose to do as an act in line with his will; entirely and thoroughly in line with his will, which is in line with his nature. The point is that the only information we have about his creating is what is in the Bible, to want to set this aside and claim that could be alternatives is completely pointless, unless, of course, one wants to open the way to set aside the revelation and claim that it is about something other than what it depicts. That then is a different story and relies on what is not said, not on what is said. This still gets us nowhere, because everything that is not said is available for reference: then why have words at all, if their meaning can be negated so easily?
The god who could have created differently is, I suggest, another god: he is not the one whose invisible attributes are revealed in his creation, but one who is otherwise: uninvolved, dis-related, not in relationship, or one who is by his nature love. So could God have created in a way different to that which he did? All I can say, is, 'not this God' you have to think up another god whose invisible attributes are different to the one who reveals himself in the Bible and in creation.
10 December 2010
Stick up for Atheists!
I overheard a coversation at a primary school concert this week: a chap was telling his friend that his daughter (in year 1) had told the teacher "those of us who are atheists don't feel happy singing this song". The song was a Christmas carol, of course.
The friend, who was a church goer, supported the child's independence, and may have made an opening to the fellow on the larger questions (no conversation had under God's hand is a lost conversation, IMO); but what could have been said as an alternative?
A reply might have gone along these lines:
OR
OR
The friend, who was a church goer, supported the child's independence, and may have made an opening to the fellow on the larger questions (no conversation had under God's hand is a lost conversation, IMO); but what could have been said as an alternative?
A reply might have gone along these lines:
That's a great comment: it takes Christmas to the next stage: you know that Christmas is the Christian work-over of a pagan cult; well that girl was giving the Christian festival another religous work-over; but her religion is 'I don't believe in God'. I don't know that there's a lot of romance in that religion though.
OR
Yeah, its not right that children are made to suppress religious questions: I hope she lets others question her religion!
OR
I wonder if she has explored the logical conclusion of a thorough-going materialist ontology: that there are no qualitative differences between any particular configurations of matter.OR
Hey, really? Ironically, I reckon that [modern Western] atheism is a heresy of Christianity! It presupposes a rational world where human ideas have value! Which is inconsistent with atheism!OR
How come?
Atheists act as though will has value and ideas have significance but their belief does not provide a basis for either. But both are consistent with Christian theism. It has it that personhood is fundamental to what is real, and mind is prior to matter! Atheism must reduce to materialism and that provides no way of saying any arrangement of matter is any better than any other.
How can you say that? I mean – any belief expressed by an arrangement of material can have no value over any other: they are all equally arbitrary results of arrangements of material which aren’t themselves differentiable as to value and so provide no basis for comparative valuation. In other words, arrangements of material are just that, and being simply material there is nothing in them to say one is better than the other and so there is nothing in them to say the results of any one are better than any other. So, if your atheism is the result of an arrangement of material, which on your grounds it must be, and if my theism is the result of an arrangement of material, then there’s nothing to tell them apart! Both are equally unimportant.
OR
That’s certainly a view, but how can it have any real-world validity, any substance, when it is the result of a mere arrangement of matter and when there is no basis in matter for preferring any one arrangement and its results over any other?
How can matter rise above itself and allow the creation of value judgements, or even basic value attributes when matter is the final reference point? You start with material arrangements and end with other material arrangements. Nothing is there that allows gradations of value to be established, or value criteria to be derived in any way that has real meaning; that is, meaning attached to what is basically real: value is completely arbitrary, as are arrangements of matter and therefore is without substance. What you are left with is force, which is what atheists use on everyone as soon as they come into power.
Genesis and Poetry
My comments on an article on Genesis and Poetry:
The narrative structure of Gen 1, while it contains a sort of rough parallelism, is more like a deliminted list, as we'd call it today. It has a list structure similar to the ordered lists used in computer databases, with regular structure of incremented counts, start and end markers and a content section.
Blocher calls it a list, and it is in general structural conformity with the many other narrative lists scattered throught the pentateuch and historical books of the OT (this would be worth a solid academic study by a Hebrew scholar). The point of a narrative list is that it makes communication both memorable and unambiguously efficient; its over-arching dual structures of the two groups of three days, and the rough chiasmatic structure also go toward improving its memorability.
Prior to the use of punctuation and typograpical hints to the interpretation of texts, I hazard the guess that the sophisticated structures of grouping and patterning of texts, such as chiasmis performed the role of demarking text units to draw understanding of what was being communicated.
The narrative structure of Gen 1, while it contains a sort of rough parallelism, is more like a deliminted list, as we'd call it today. It has a list structure similar to the ordered lists used in computer databases, with regular structure of incremented counts, start and end markers and a content section.
Blocher calls it a list, and it is in general structural conformity with the many other narrative lists scattered throught the pentateuch and historical books of the OT (this would be worth a solid academic study by a Hebrew scholar). The point of a narrative list is that it makes communication both memorable and unambiguously efficient; its over-arching dual structures of the two groups of three days, and the rough chiasmatic structure also go toward improving its memorability.
Prior to the use of punctuation and typograpical hints to the interpretation of texts, I hazard the guess that the sophisticated structures of grouping and patterning of texts, such as chiasmis performed the role of demarking text units to draw understanding of what was being communicated.
8 December 2010
Translating leadership
In the light of my recent posts on the misapplication of the notion of 'leadership' to church life, I recently came across some statements of a church's objectives which I thought I'd attempt to re-word in the light of those posts.
Original: to review the leadership structures and processes of church and evaluate our goals in the light of this.
My suggestion: to review the ministry structures and processes of church....
Original: To develop service/leadership teams for reach congregation.
My suggestion: to develop service teams for each congregation.
Original: For our children's ministry leaders; to establish regular meetings and care for our leaders.
My suggestion: For our children's ministry workers; to establish regular meetings and pastoral support.
Original: To further develop a culture of equipping leaders.
My suggestion: To further develop a culture of equipping and encouraging people to take part in ministry.
Original: To establish a leadership team to coordinate men's ministry.
My suggestion: To establish a committee to coordinate men's ministry.
The constant use of the word 'leadership' is not only cloying, not only uninteresting use of English, but it masks the range of ministries that people engage in within a church, it hides variety, interest and complexity behind one somewhat mechanical term which has become meaningless through (inaccurate) overuse.
Original: to review the leadership structures and processes of church and evaluate our goals in the light of this.
My suggestion: to review the ministry structures and processes of church....
Original: To develop service/leadership teams for reach congregation.
My suggestion: to develop service teams for each congregation.
Original: For our children's ministry leaders; to establish regular meetings and care for our leaders.
My suggestion: For our children's ministry workers; to establish regular meetings and pastoral support.
Original: To further develop a culture of equipping leaders.
My suggestion: To further develop a culture of equipping and encouraging people to take part in ministry.
Original: To establish a leadership team to coordinate men's ministry.
My suggestion: To establish a committee to coordinate men's ministry.
The constant use of the word 'leadership' is not only cloying, not only uninteresting use of English, but it masks the range of ministries that people engage in within a church, it hides variety, interest and complexity behind one somewhat mechanical term which has become meaningless through (inaccurate) overuse.
5 December 2010
Refutations
Rick Vis in his talk “The Fact of Biblical Creation" quotes Henry Morris in his commentary on Genesis:
This opening verse of the Bible refutes atheism, because the universe was created by God; it refutes pantheism for God is transcendent to that which he created, it refutes materialism for matter had a beginning, it refutes dualism because God was alone [notwithstanding that God is in three persons], it refutes humanism, because God, not man is the ultimate reality, it refutes evolution because God created all things.
30 November 2010
What Good's Creation?
From a talk by Rick Vis at Grace Reformed Baptist Church (at about 38m into the talk) "The Fact of Biblical Creation":
The implication of welcoming the truth of our text, Genesis 1:1 is simply this: it opens the door to hope and salvation for sinners.
Once admit that the world come into being because of the supernatural creation of almighty God, then there is no miracle in the Bible that should be a stumbling block to any man; believe that God created all things out of nothing and what miracle that follows should be so hard to believe; once believe, once recognize, once acknowledge that God created the heavens and earth and all that exists out of nothing, then it's not a leap at all to believe that the same God, God the son, the second person of the trinity, should join himself to a human nature, not ceasing to be God but nevertheless becoming fully man to save sinners, idolaters who have been saying ever since Genesis 3 “in the beginning man”, and to bring them to a place where they begin to agree with Genesis 1:1 and say for the first time in their lives “in the beginning God”.
The implication of welcoming the truth of our text, Genesis 1:1 is simply this: it opens the door to hope and salvation for sinners.
Once admit that the world come into being because of the supernatural creation of almighty God, then there is no miracle in the Bible that should be a stumbling block to any man; believe that God created all things out of nothing and what miracle that follows should be so hard to believe; once believe, once recognize, once acknowledge that God created the heavens and earth and all that exists out of nothing, then it's not a leap at all to believe that the same God, God the son, the second person of the trinity, should join himself to a human nature, not ceasing to be God but nevertheless becoming fully man to save sinners, idolaters who have been saying ever since Genesis 3 “in the beginning man”, and to bring them to a place where they begin to agree with Genesis 1:1 and say for the first time in their lives “in the beginning God”.
29 November 2010
Quadrant on Christians
In this month's Quadrant there's a discussion of the public face of Christianity, noting the voice that the 'new atheists' have, but the lack of public involvement by Christian intellectuals in defending, explaining and applying their faith in critique of current culture (and not just mere moralising, for which the Church seems to be pegged).
They mention the Centre of Public Christianity, which is not too bad an endeavour, although I've criticised one of its people for their view of Genesis 1, etc. that fails to distinguish a Christian view from a Naturalist one, but the problem with such explicit missions to the contemporary mind is that it waves its flags and everyone ducks, dismissively.
I'd prefer to see Christian intellectuals in the 'marketplace' so to speak. Writing in the SMH Spectrum weekend magazine, in the Australian and Financial Review; having a strong, cogent and sufficiently well argued case to be listened to, because what they say is worth hearing.
This would be 'counter-ghettoing' after decades, if not a century of ghettoing, largely driven, I lead towards thinking, by the self-boosting ascendency of naturalism under the cover of its flag-ship, Darwinism. Christians in the public sphere have not come to grips with the strength of biblical creation and the weakness of materialism for engaging persons with their inevitable teleological concerns, and, given the popular interest in or commitment to Darwinism, at some level, and origins in general, they end up having nothing to say.
Interestingly in the Church itself the topic is avoided, as if there's an unspoken embarrasment at the doctrine of creation; yet whenever the topic and its related topics come up, they are received with vast interest and often debate (see this discussion). People at church think about and are interested in this topic, but the Church's servants so often skirt it.
They mention the Centre of Public Christianity, which is not too bad an endeavour, although I've criticised one of its people for their view of Genesis 1, etc. that fails to distinguish a Christian view from a Naturalist one, but the problem with such explicit missions to the contemporary mind is that it waves its flags and everyone ducks, dismissively.
I'd prefer to see Christian intellectuals in the 'marketplace' so to speak. Writing in the SMH Spectrum weekend magazine, in the Australian and Financial Review; having a strong, cogent and sufficiently well argued case to be listened to, because what they say is worth hearing.
This would be 'counter-ghettoing' after decades, if not a century of ghettoing, largely driven, I lead towards thinking, by the self-boosting ascendency of naturalism under the cover of its flag-ship, Darwinism. Christians in the public sphere have not come to grips with the strength of biblical creation and the weakness of materialism for engaging persons with their inevitable teleological concerns, and, given the popular interest in or commitment to Darwinism, at some level, and origins in general, they end up having nothing to say.
Interestingly in the Church itself the topic is avoided, as if there's an unspoken embarrasment at the doctrine of creation; yet whenever the topic and its related topics come up, they are received with vast interest and often debate (see this discussion). People at church think about and are interested in this topic, but the Church's servants so often skirt it.
What your exegesis says about your exegesis
Much contemporary evangelical exegesis of Genesis 1 starts with an acceptance of the basic tenets of materialism and preserves that world view from any final conflict with the revelation of God, showing no final challenge from the Word of God to the Word of Man and no opening of the path to the gospel by declaring that our creator and redeemer works through his word and is intimately involved with his creation. The great point of Genesis 1 is that Spirit (love, personhood, mind) is basic, and matter is not, it is produced by mind (God's mind).
In short it provides a view of Genesis 1 that leaves the materialist world view intact. So you've got to wonder at its credibility, and its evangelical effectiveness, because failing to effectively challenge an anti or non-theistic world view must be a marker of failure to adhere to biblical proclamation.
Rather, Genesis 1 can be a launch pad for challenge from both the real world and revelation to the notion that the world is somehow independent of God, marked in the assertive rhetoric which has as its aim, and result, the removal of God from the real world of our personal encounters. Indeed, it so amends the intent of Genesis 1 that it comes into conformity with the materialist impoverishment that stands diametrically opposed to it!
This exegesis removes any challenge to the materialist conceptualization of the world in an anti-prophetic move that denies the Spirit of God. Most materialists upon hearing such exegesis relegate it to fantasy, because they *know* that the cosmos exists on its own account and mind is a mere arrangement of matter. That most usage of Genesis 1 fails to dislodge this is the extent to which it submerges the gospel. It agrees that we live in a purely material world, and statements to the contrary are a mere gloss with strictly aesthetic appeal, and not post-Fall confrontations to its lunacy. They therefore offer nothing to a world lost in empty and self-obsessed consumerism, where things, image, impression, and sheer braggadocio displace inner growth and loving connection with the creator of all things, who is love.
In short it provides a view of Genesis 1 that leaves the materialist world view intact. So you've got to wonder at its credibility, and its evangelical effectiveness, because failing to effectively challenge an anti or non-theistic world view must be a marker of failure to adhere to biblical proclamation.
Rather, Genesis 1 can be a launch pad for challenge from both the real world and revelation to the notion that the world is somehow independent of God, marked in the assertive rhetoric which has as its aim, and result, the removal of God from the real world of our personal encounters. Indeed, it so amends the intent of Genesis 1 that it comes into conformity with the materialist impoverishment that stands diametrically opposed to it!
This exegesis removes any challenge to the materialist conceptualization of the world in an anti-prophetic move that denies the Spirit of God. Most materialists upon hearing such exegesis relegate it to fantasy, because they *know* that the cosmos exists on its own account and mind is a mere arrangement of matter. That most usage of Genesis 1 fails to dislodge this is the extent to which it submerges the gospel. It agrees that we live in a purely material world, and statements to the contrary are a mere gloss with strictly aesthetic appeal, and not post-Fall confrontations to its lunacy. They therefore offer nothing to a world lost in empty and self-obsessed consumerism, where things, image, impression, and sheer braggadocio displace inner growth and loving connection with the creator of all things, who is love.
28 November 2010
Sustainability
It's amazing how adherence to the biblical doctrine of creation can lead to evangelism in the most unlikely of settings.
I was at a business function hosted by a university school of business (at The Establishment, for what its worth) and was chatting to a couple of people when the conversation swung to sustainability. I played a somewhat sceptical line to see where it would lead (I discussed economic drivers of production and consumption and wondered where the idea of sustainability fitted in).
One of the people there claimed that sustainability was a Value, not only because it would preserve the habitat we all relied upon, but even if there were no people it would be a Good. I asked how it would be a Good if there were no people to value the result: she said it would be Good for the earth; but, I said, the earth is not conscious, so how would the good be apprehended?
She had no answer and was at materialism's dead end. So I discussed that Good only had context in people, and had to be about conscious interactions; but if these interactions were the mere outcomes of material, the notion of Good having any real weight evaporated.
Of course, the conversation meandered, but it got to the point where I could point to the dichotomy: materialism took us to dust, which had no differentiable value, but the notion of value itself relied upon there being a means of differentiating values and this came from mind. If mind was basic, then there were real values; and thus was congruent with a real creator, mind who had will: matter therefore being an outcome of mind.
It wasn't the gospel by any means, it was too short a conversation, but it took her to an edge of her inarticulate materialism. I pray the next conversation with a Christian who obeys the word of God in its revelation of creation will move her thoughts closer to our redeemer.
I was at a business function hosted by a university school of business (at The Establishment, for what its worth) and was chatting to a couple of people when the conversation swung to sustainability. I played a somewhat sceptical line to see where it would lead (I discussed economic drivers of production and consumption and wondered where the idea of sustainability fitted in).
One of the people there claimed that sustainability was a Value, not only because it would preserve the habitat we all relied upon, but even if there were no people it would be a Good. I asked how it would be a Good if there were no people to value the result: she said it would be Good for the earth; but, I said, the earth is not conscious, so how would the good be apprehended?
She had no answer and was at materialism's dead end. So I discussed that Good only had context in people, and had to be about conscious interactions; but if these interactions were the mere outcomes of material, the notion of Good having any real weight evaporated.
Of course, the conversation meandered, but it got to the point where I could point to the dichotomy: materialism took us to dust, which had no differentiable value, but the notion of value itself relied upon there being a means of differentiating values and this came from mind. If mind was basic, then there were real values; and thus was congruent with a real creator, mind who had will: matter therefore being an outcome of mind.
It wasn't the gospel by any means, it was too short a conversation, but it took her to an edge of her inarticulate materialism. I pray the next conversation with a Christian who obeys the word of God in its revelation of creation will move her thoughts closer to our redeemer.
27 November 2010
The Faith of an Evolutionist
John Whitcombe suggested that the following would be a statement of faith for one who 'believes' in evolution:
The faith of the Christian, in distinction, is given in Hebrews 11:3: "by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things that are seen are not made of things that are visible; in line with Genesis 1:1: the personal, transcendent, triune God created all things that exist and he did it out of nothing.
So the materialist thinks that complex things came from less complex (gratuitously?), that personality comes from material, that life comes from non-life, randomly and for no special reason. On the other hand, the biblical Christian would hold the opposite: that matter came from (God's) mind, that personality comes from personality, and our being as people: loving, communicating and hoping, connects with the basics of reality, in opposition to the materialist, for whom the only connection we have with the basics of reality, is that we can reduce to material: dust!
Yet there are Christians who either think that our origins: the Bible's information about our origin, is of marginal, and perhaps only symbolic importance, or that the true information is given on the basis of materialism and that God must be an epiphenomenon of matter, because evolution relies on material: it is a philosophy that finally mind comes from matter, and the personal is of no more real significance than dust blowing in the wind!
Some Christians think that 'evolution' explains what God proclaims; yet the disjunct between the two is that our origin is connected to God, to 'word' to person and to will at every point; and does not start with material, but thought. The material is, however, important in the economy of God, because we are made in material, and the life in the high entropic improbabilities that we are is connected with God to the extent that rejection of God is linked with the absence of life: death!
By faith I understand that the worlds were not framed by the word of any god, so that what is seen has indeed been made out of previously existing and less complex visible things by purely natural processes over billions of years.
The faith of the Christian, in distinction, is given in Hebrews 11:3: "by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things that are seen are not made of things that are visible; in line with Genesis 1:1: the personal, transcendent, triune God created all things that exist and he did it out of nothing.
So the materialist thinks that complex things came from less complex (gratuitously?), that personality comes from material, that life comes from non-life, randomly and for no special reason. On the other hand, the biblical Christian would hold the opposite: that matter came from (God's) mind, that personality comes from personality, and our being as people: loving, communicating and hoping, connects with the basics of reality, in opposition to the materialist, for whom the only connection we have with the basics of reality, is that we can reduce to material: dust!
Yet there are Christians who either think that our origins: the Bible's information about our origin, is of marginal, and perhaps only symbolic importance, or that the true information is given on the basis of materialism and that God must be an epiphenomenon of matter, because evolution relies on material: it is a philosophy that finally mind comes from matter, and the personal is of no more real significance than dust blowing in the wind!
Some Christians think that 'evolution' explains what God proclaims; yet the disjunct between the two is that our origin is connected to God, to 'word' to person and to will at every point; and does not start with material, but thought. The material is, however, important in the economy of God, because we are made in material, and the life in the high entropic improbabilities that we are is connected with God to the extent that rejection of God is linked with the absence of life: death!
Mohler on Adam
A quote from Albert Mohler:
If you adhere to an old earth position you have a very difficult time explaining how the effects of the Fall--death, disease and suffering--showed up long before Adam and Eve.
[from the current Creation magazine]
The article also cites a couple of papers on the topic:
Plants and death, and
Romans 8
I've posted with reference to Mohler previously, on the Framework Hypothesis, and the age of the earth.
If you adhere to an old earth position you have a very difficult time explaining how the effects of the Fall--death, disease and suffering--showed up long before Adam and Eve.
[from the current Creation magazine]
The article also cites a couple of papers on the topic:
Plants and death, and
Romans 8
I've posted with reference to Mohler previously, on the Framework Hypothesis, and the age of the earth.
26 November 2010
Dead like dust
Further to my posts on death, reading the Bible I came to Genesis 3:19. This would seem to cap off any thought that the death Adam brought was only 'spiritual'. There is clearly a conjunct between the physicalness of the creation as our physical setting, and that death intrudes physically: dust is clearly of physical, and death is clearly to have physical effects. QED.
24 November 2010
2 Worlds to Live In
Comparing conceptions of the world between materialism and Christianity causes me to ponder why anyone would want to adopt or even align with materialism.
Materialism has it that matter produces mind.
Christianity, that mind produced matter.
Materialism asserts that the end of all questions is dust: that’s effectively what everything comes from.
Christianity tells us that the end of all questions is a person with whom one may have a beneficial relationship, a relationship of love.
Materialism is that reality is finally material. Persons’ relationships, decisions and will have no significance.
Christianity is that reality is finally love: persons’ relationships, decisions and will have significance.
Some Christians think that materialist speculations tell us how the universe came about, and then graft God onto this scheme without any influence on the scheme (so the grafting has no effect or substantive point).
The Bible sets it the other way around: The creation account provides the scheme by which we can understand the material world as the product of love, for beneficial relationships. It goes on to explain why this seems to not properly obtain in our experience as we, in the first man and woman, rejected relationship with God for isolation from his love.
What do these two ways of conceiving the world produce?
Two different chains of descent, or "provenances" for we people: for the materialist we go back to pond scum, and by reference have no where to look for the basis of person hood and its significance; for the Christian, we go back to Adam, a person, who is directly from the will and action of God: its persons back to the start, and our personhood is not an 'emergent property' of material, but has genuine significance.
Materialism has it that matter produces mind.
Christianity, that mind produced matter.
Materialism asserts that the end of all questions is dust: that’s effectively what everything comes from.
Christianity tells us that the end of all questions is a person with whom one may have a beneficial relationship, a relationship of love.
Materialism is that reality is finally material. Persons’ relationships, decisions and will have no significance.
Christianity is that reality is finally love: persons’ relationships, decisions and will have significance.
Some Christians think that materialist speculations tell us how the universe came about, and then graft God onto this scheme without any influence on the scheme (so the grafting has no effect or substantive point).
The Bible sets it the other way around: The creation account provides the scheme by which we can understand the material world as the product of love, for beneficial relationships. It goes on to explain why this seems to not properly obtain in our experience as we, in the first man and woman, rejected relationship with God for isolation from his love.
What do these two ways of conceiving the world produce?
Two different chains of descent, or "provenances" for we people: for the materialist we go back to pond scum, and by reference have no where to look for the basis of person hood and its significance; for the Christian, we go back to Adam, a person, who is directly from the will and action of God: its persons back to the start, and our personhood is not an 'emergent property' of material, but has genuine significance.
20 November 2010
What do we do with words?
There’s a common hermeneutical epistemology employed in respect of Genesis 1 that represents, I think, a retreat from the possibility of gaining understanding, rather than an advance into understanding. Applied to texts wholesale, the approach often adopted to Genesis 1, etc. would render problematic any attempt to provide safety instructions on cleaning fluids!
One of the features of the relationship between us and God is that it rests on propositions: the ‘word’ is of central importance in Christian theology, practice and devotion. Indeed, it was in the beginning and through it all that exists came about (John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1, Hebrews 1:2, 11:3 Ps 33:9?).
But when it comes to G 1, we have commentators telling us that God is not capable of communicating propositions that have any connection with the real world to which they appear to represent a connection, but by such propositions communicates something other than the content of the words used.
This does two very dramatic things: firstly, it puts out approach to the Bible on par with a world-concept in which there is no communicating God. It gives Christian theology the same footing as paganism, where lack of knowledge leads to myth, where explanation is rendered irrelevant and inaccessible by the ‘mists of time’, questioning is deflected by vagueness, and enquiry denied by imprecision. In G 1 we have to the contrary of myth the elucidation of information to demonstrate, not just assert, God’s creative activity. If the information is false, the demonstration fails and we don’t know that (let alone what) God created!
Asserting the validity for exegesis of applying whatever explanation we like for words in the Bible (that is, explanations that overturn the sense of the words on their face reading, given the narrative genre we are dealing with here), puts us in the same position as the pagan who denies that there are any such words, or an author of God’s capability and love (and therefore truthfulness) to produce them.
Secondly, and by implication, it denies that the content of G 1 is able to convey precision, despite it being replete with precision on its face: as to timing, events, and their distribution over the period stated. If anything, the content is nothing but precise. To overturn it, you must deny that God can communicate content that is congruent with actual events in our earth “frame of reference”. And if he can’t, you must establish the basis upon which we can use the communication of these events (which become not-events) to establish a principle that only exists on the basis of the report of these events having correspondence with their occurrence in time and space, and therefore having a date and a location!
The step-wise denial, which if not articulated by commentators, is implicit, means that the hope that we can make anything of G 1 collapses under the weight of a level of incoherence that makes texts pointless as means of communicating. Welcome to the Framework Hypothesis!
(Briefly here: a previous post on God's word qua word.)
One of the features of the relationship between us and God is that it rests on propositions: the ‘word’ is of central importance in Christian theology, practice and devotion. Indeed, it was in the beginning and through it all that exists came about (John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1, Hebrews 1:2, 11:3 Ps 33:9?).
But when it comes to G 1, we have commentators telling us that God is not capable of communicating propositions that have any connection with the real world to which they appear to represent a connection, but by such propositions communicates something other than the content of the words used.
This does two very dramatic things: firstly, it puts out approach to the Bible on par with a world-concept in which there is no communicating God. It gives Christian theology the same footing as paganism, where lack of knowledge leads to myth, where explanation is rendered irrelevant and inaccessible by the ‘mists of time’, questioning is deflected by vagueness, and enquiry denied by imprecision. In G 1 we have to the contrary of myth the elucidation of information to demonstrate, not just assert, God’s creative activity. If the information is false, the demonstration fails and we don’t know that (let alone what) God created!
Asserting the validity for exegesis of applying whatever explanation we like for words in the Bible (that is, explanations that overturn the sense of the words on their face reading, given the narrative genre we are dealing with here), puts us in the same position as the pagan who denies that there are any such words, or an author of God’s capability and love (and therefore truthfulness) to produce them.
Secondly, and by implication, it denies that the content of G 1 is able to convey precision, despite it being replete with precision on its face: as to timing, events, and their distribution over the period stated. If anything, the content is nothing but precise. To overturn it, you must deny that God can communicate content that is congruent with actual events in our earth “frame of reference”. And if he can’t, you must establish the basis upon which we can use the communication of these events (which become not-events) to establish a principle that only exists on the basis of the report of these events having correspondence with their occurrence in time and space, and therefore having a date and a location!
The step-wise denial, which if not articulated by commentators, is implicit, means that the hope that we can make anything of G 1 collapses under the weight of a level of incoherence that makes texts pointless as means of communicating. Welcome to the Framework Hypothesis!
(Briefly here: a previous post on God's word qua word.)
19 November 2010
Hostile Intruder
From a sermon by Robert Jones, St James Turramurra, 11-11-2007 (a Remembrance Day sermon, starting with mention of the Battle of the Somme)
The Bible passages used were:
Isaiah 11:1-10
1 Cor 15: 12-58
Robert towards the end of the sermon, made these remarks:
Picking up on the theme starting at Death at the Carrington.
The Bible passages used were:
Isaiah 11:1-10
1 Cor 15: 12-58
Robert towards the end of the sermon, made these remarks:
Jesus’ resurrection signals the total defeat of death…death itself will be destroyed as the hostile intruder it is in God's creation.
Picking up on the theme starting at Death at the Carrington.
17 November 2010
Whose God?
From Kurt Wise’s talk in 2000 at Grace Reformed Baptist Church on Creationist Biology
[at about 8 mins, if you want to find it in the talk]
[at about 8 mins, if you want to find it in the talk]
God in creating created a creation that reflects his very nature, he was constrained to create a creation that reflects his very nature,…if God had been a different God there would have been a different creation that would have resulted (Roms 1:20). If you believe in a different kind of creation, you believe in a different kind of God. When you play around with the issues of origins, because there is such a direct relationship, accord to the claim of God, God himself created the creation. so If that’s the case, if you postulate a different mode of origin of the universe it necessitates a different view of God from that provided in the scriptures.
Wise on death and the creation
From Kurt Wise’s talk in 2000 at Grace Reformed Baptist Church on Creationist Biology
[at about 47 mins, if you want to find it in the talk]
We under estimate the importance of sin before God, so much so that the sin of man caused a crack in the perfection of the entire universe. There is no such thing as a little sin. Sin is extraordinarily important in God’s economy and we so undervalue the significance of sin; but when you start to see the effects it has had on the biological creation I think you re struck by the incredible force of sin in God’s economy and how much against his nature that it is.
For example, the curse introduced imperfection into the creation, [and] automatically God introduces death: which it turns out has a dual function: punishment for sin, but also an indication of his mercy. Can you imagine being fallen forever, separated from God? And that goes for the creature itself, because in Romans chapter 8 it says ‘the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God’: the entire universe is waiting for our glory because it is going to be relieved from the curse, the bondage of corruption will be lifted.
[at about 47 mins, if you want to find it in the talk]
We under estimate the importance of sin before God, so much so that the sin of man caused a crack in the perfection of the entire universe. There is no such thing as a little sin. Sin is extraordinarily important in God’s economy and we so undervalue the significance of sin; but when you start to see the effects it has had on the biological creation I think you re struck by the incredible force of sin in God’s economy and how much against his nature that it is.
For example, the curse introduced imperfection into the creation, [and] automatically God introduces death: which it turns out has a dual function: punishment for sin, but also an indication of his mercy. Can you imagine being fallen forever, separated from God? And that goes for the creature itself, because in Romans chapter 8 it says ‘the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God’: the entire universe is waiting for our glory because it is going to be relieved from the curse, the bondage of corruption will be lifted.
16 November 2010
Kelly on Death
Another follow-up to the Death at the Carrington post:
From Creation and Change by Douglas Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte.
From Creation and Change by Douglas Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte.
Even more theologically significant is the clear Biblical teaching running throughout the Old and New Testaments (as in Genesis chapter three and Romans chapter five) that death and disintegration of the entire cosmos came through Adam's sin, for Adam was the covenant head and representative of the whole creation, not Lucifer. Althought Lucifer fell before Adam, his fall did not bring death into the rest of the created order, because Adam, not Lucifer, was the representative figure (or 'covenant head') of the whole creation, thus taking it down with him into judgement. (97)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)