A bit on Grace...

This is one of my posts for my Religious Studies Discussion Question this week.

The debate between Law and Grace seems an issue as one may bring up such verses as “O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19b). in contrast to Paul’s "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV). Yet, things get more complicated when Augustine’s reading of grace comes at the expense of attacking the Jews for their love of the Law (Stowers 1997, 14). Furthering the issue that Augustine read Paul in a Neo-Platonist way that creates a dualism instead of a more holistic understanding of Grace (3). 

People speak of Grace as a means that appears to cover sin, or worse and excuse to keep sinning. While Grace very well does as such, there seems to be a thin layered understanding of what Grace is. The often used definition of “unmerited favor” seems shallow when one realizes that God has shown His Grace throughout the Old Testament from the very first “sin” where instead of instant death, God casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and remain in their fallen state as immortals. Furthering this idea is Cain and Able in which God marks Cain with a mark to keep him safe from being murdered for his act of murdering his own brother. In essence, God protects a murderer and it appears justice is not a priority to God at least in this instance.

Gundry points out that ““Galatians 2:16a reads, “but knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith of Jesus Christ.””, gives us a key insight that Grace cannot be earned. As Cain did not earn Grace yet was saved from retribution or revenge, so we find faith somehow preserves us from wrath as well as our “earned” wages of sin.

In the New Testament we have mainly two views of justification. The Greek view brings with it the idea of justice with punishment (Gundry, 2003, 357). While in Jewish thought, we have the idea of amnesty or that the righteous prevail (357). Paul, who is writing to both audiences, seems to fall more into the idea that the “righteous” will prevail “through faith”. Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sara to show the contrast of human effort versus the spiritual gift of Grace.

           

Paul's allegorizing of the conflict between Hagar and Sarah in terms of the conflict between law and grace is, in our opinion, an example of legitimate allegorizing for it rests on a genuine analogy. The univocal element in the analogy can be clearly stated. As Ishmael was born of human effort, so the Judaizers are seeking righteousness by human effort. And as Isaac's birth was the result of God's gracious act in fulfilling his promise, so it is with the people of God. By their birth of the Spirit, they become children of the promise, members of Christ's body and citizens of the "Jerusalem which is above." (Jewett, 1987, 175)

We see Paul’s view of “the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17) becomes clearer in the mini Romans of Galatians. Chapter 3 of Galatians opens as if Paul is screaming:

 3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (NIV).

Paul sincerely warns that human effort leads only to the idea of rejecting the Cross of Christ and thus accepting the Roman idea of being on the wrong side of justification, meaning accepting God’s wrath over Grace. Paul’s argument is not only is Grace that saves you, but also it is Grace that maintains you. Since Galatians was a mix of Greek, Jew, saved, and unsaved people, this was purposed to allow the reader to see the importance of Grace. Paul, in essence, shows us there is no other means for truly being justified unless one humbly accepts the Grace that is given by God through Christ. Ben Witherington points out that this was also a time of persecution where the Christian would be singled out as denying the worship of Lord Caesar (447). It would be easier to hide as a Jew as they were an accepted religion to Rome. In a sense, Paul is calling those who believe to come out and show themselves without fear and that by faith, God will bring about the justification (in the Jewish view) for those who have faith as Abraham showed with Isaac.

In Genesis 4:10, God states that Able's blood calls to him from the ground. To kill someone called for equal justice, meaning "an eye for an eye". Yet, instead of justice, Cain receives a mark. Many view this mark as a curse, however if one realizes Cain is marked so that no one else will judge and kill him. Cain should have been judged and killed for murdering his brother, yet instead was shown grace by means of the mark. I might point out that Hebrews 12:24 speaks of this very thing I am presenting:

"You have come to Jesus, the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, and  to the sprinkled blood, which speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood of Abel."

This is a typology of what is a deeper understanding of God's grace at the Cross. While we tend to believe we enact the Cross, we do nothing. Romans 5:10 states clearly,  "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"

In that verse we learn that even in our fallen state and even being at odds against God so much as we are enemies, we were reconciled at the Cross. That is the same as the mark of Cain. However, as with Cain, we will die in our sins if we do not have the Life of Christ. The point is that many people are content with the "forgiven" part and still live in the desert outside of paradise as Cain chose to do, yet we also have the Resurrection that gives us His Life or the Life of Christ Jesus

Did Cain escape punishment and never had to face "justice" (as per the idea of Greek thinking)? To answer that question we would have to be God. Yet, we are told that the wages of sin is death and Cain did die. If so, then Cain paid his wages for his sin at his death. One can only speculate what Peter means when he stated Jesus preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah’s age (2 Peter 3:18-21).

Without argument Grace is unmerited favor. However there is much more depth than that to the definition. While I am not fluent in Greek or Hebrew, scholars like Zimmerli point out that within the Greek definition and root word for Grace is such words as "joy, rejoicing, merriness" which to a degree seem to be expressions of emotions. If I be so bold as to say that Grace is the emotion of loving joy God feels for us (Zimmerli 1981, 9:359-60).

Reference List

Gundry, R. H. (2003). A survey of the new testament. (4th ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Jewett, Paul King. 1987. "Children of grace." Theology Today 44, no. 2: 170-178. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2012).

Stowers, Stanley K. 1997. A rereading of Romans: justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Witherington, Ben. 1998. Grace in Galatia: a commentary on Paul's letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2012).

Zimmerli, ed. 1981. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 7th ed. Ed. Gerhard Friedrich and Gerhard Kittel. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdman.

Thoughts on Satan, Job, Jude and all things adversarial

Picture source 

My half of a conversation between a friend on FB and myself. 

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day.

Free will was given to the angels and they chose to leave their habitation thus leaving the presence of God so God taking the stronger ones chained them in Tartarus. Now, what interests me is that most of this comes straight from the Book of Enoch. Is it true or based on fables and used as an example for us.

I think Job shows the type of battle with "powers and Principalities of the air" that Paul talked about. However before we jump into "demons and wizards" remember in Jewish thought, Satan was not necessarily a "being" but an arch-typical adversary and could have stood for anything that was "adversarial" which means it could have been symbolic.

While we could carry over the Book of Enoch, I prefer to explore the idea of "satan" as being any type of adversary that keeps us from God. That opens up a whole can of beans without Demons and such.

The idea that anything (such as the case of Job being attacked in a "spiritual" sense) could be a spiritual attack could Job's children been a point of idolatry (though the Bible states Job was "righteous" in God's eyes... which should in itself tweak some people's theology as it does my own.)

So, in a sense anything standing between God and man could be seen as adversarial and thus even Job's children could have been a stumbling block or Job's pride in his own righteousness that comes out later just before Elihu shows up (don't he seem like Jesus?)

I see that we freely chose and God responds. As Job chose to whine, God explains clearly that Job has no right to whine as "I am God and owe you no explanation for my actions". I think that the Grace of God is shown in the fact that though God does not owe us an explanation is shown in the irony that we have the story of Job to reveal a part of God not known. I see job as God's winking at us a bit. It is like, "Here is the story of a man who suffers more than anyone, yet in the end he prevails. I did not need to tell you this story, but by grace I have as I love you."

At least that is what I get out of Job. = )

So in a sense if Satan is just any adversarial issue (right word?) then these powers have been chained (symbolically) in darkness and we have the power and blessing of God to overcome them.

Again, that is my humble opinion. LOL!

What of suffering?

This is take from a discussion with my OT professor on the side. His question was, "Isn't it the case, though, that the 'redeemer' that Job envisions is someone to stand between him and God, making God is adversary. Also, are we not being a bit "Job centered"?"

Picture source and another interesting article on giving to homeless from a clinical psychologist perspective

I do  think that believing we need a mediator or redeemer makes God an adversary -- from our perspective. I believe that God has never really been that adversary but like in the case of divorce, God in a sense knew the heart of humanity was hardened. When we find that our true redeemer is Jesus, and that Jesus was the incarnation of God, it is then we realize that God never was our adversary but was always for us. Of course we now have the benefit of historical revelation to look back and understand. I think that faith and humility was and still is the core of our part of salvation for "God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). In that verse we find that when we humbly accept the love and realize how forgiving God is through Jesus, we receive the grace to walk in. We are thus saved by grace. We are first loved, then learn to walk in the gift of faith God has given us.

God never was an adversary to me, while God allows things, again, we need to either take responsibility and make sure things like kids dying of starvation in Africa does not happen or realize that just sometimes we need to stand in faith as God is doing something greater than we can understand and know. At times, and maybe this is extra-biblical (Book of Enoch-ish) but at times I wonder if all this is about proving that Satan is worthy of his judgement. That God created mankind to show Satan that a creation can and will love God in their own free will. If Job shows us one thing is that there is hope in humanity when we humbly accept what God is doing. Humanity may not like it or understand it, but imagine if all people humbly began to seek out ways to love others... what would this world look like?

POSTMODERNISM: DARING TO DECONSTRUCT CHRISTIANITY Part 3

This is part three and the final of the paper.

Here is part one

Part two is here

The stories we tell

While Postmodernism holds narratives suspect it becomes painfully aware of the metanarratives that drive the conscience to tell such stories. The Postmodernist realizes that the truth (while slippery like a fish) needs to be seen and held onto order to retain authenticity and integrity. While it appears that truth is relative, and it is from a finite perspective, the Source of Truth or Truth Absolute (not to be confused with the abstract absolute truth) becomes less hidden as the stories we tell become retold not for revisionist sake, but for the need for this hidden Truth we seek. Slowly we develop new “strong poets” who give us new words to express and ideas to explore. [1] As these strong poets deconstruct old ideas and possible wrong ideas there is great possibilities of a fresh and more accurate picture of True Reality.

Death of substantial self

As was already explored, death of self is a very biblical concept and essential to becoming as God intends us. The reduction to power plays gives way to a sort of death of metanarratives. If God is Truth, then only His metanarrative is reality. If Jesus is Truth, then He is reality. In a real sense, the death of human metanarratives is the death of our own power and thus giving way to the truth that is Christ Jesus being seen as the narrative and metanarrative of true power, and that power is love.

The danger, of course, is that if not careful, Christians will be immersed in Postmodernism as they have in modernism. While there is much in Postmodernism is dangerous, the Christian has hope in Christ, and if wise, becomes more dependent on Jesus and can use the tools of Postmodernism for expansion of the Kingdom.

[1] (Sire 2004, p.223) 

Bibliography

Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. 2001 - 2012 BrainyQuote. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dietrich_bonhoeffer.html (accessed 6 19, 2012).

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Second. Augsburg Fortress: Fortress Press, 2005.

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: a theology. Danvers: Chalice Press, 2010.

Palmer, M.D. Elements of a Christian Worldview. 2nd. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2002.

Sire, J.W. The Universe Next Door. Madison, WI: Inter Varsity Press, 2004.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma. 1998. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Resurrection_Postmodern.htm (accessed June 19, 2012).

---

POSTMODERNISM: DARING TO DECONSTRUCT CHRISTIANITY Part 2

The second part of my paper.
Part one is here
Part Three is here

picture source

Reality

In the past the idea of relativity has been mocked. Yet if we are honest, we filter through finite minds and taint truth to our own flavor. Even if we try, we fall victim to unfortunate interpretations and beliefs either out of laziness or it feels most comfortable. The Christian in a Postmodern world needs to understand in whom they have reality. The understanding that I am not God and God is God should be ingrained in every Christian. Humility should be the staple food for helping come to the Reality that is Christ Jesus. So often we get caught up in the “things” of God or doing the things we believe God wants us to do, people often begin to force others into that very things without thought to what God’s will is for him or her. This is what Paul spoke against in Colossians 2:16-17 warned against when he wrote:

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or in regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath Day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come, the reality, however is found in Christ.”

To take this idea one more step Jesus spoke of himself as “real” food and “real” drink (John 6:55 NIV) and shows us He is Reality that we feed from.

The true believer in Jesus is called to love and not be doctrine junkies or as N.T. Wright explains it the believer needs to be “living a true Christian praxis”. [1] The Postmodern world goes far to help true believers see the system, doctrines, teachings, and teachers that just do not work. Postmodernism exposes the lies, and though it may bring us to our own road to Emmaus, [2] it can also expose us to the truth we need to know to grow into authentic and truly “loving as we have been first loved” Christians.[3] We can look at Postmodernism as a tide that overcomes us, thus making us run back into the arms of Modernism (which has its own dangers) or push ahead in faith knowing God is already there.

Religious plurality or greater opportunity

In Postmodernism we have a movement from the premodern “I think therefore I am”, to the idea of “since I am, there for I construct reality”, to the Postmodern “But is the reality I constructed reality for others or the Prime Reality?” [4] The issue though is that Descartes fell into Platonist dualism. Descartes’s view of “matter and mind” as proof there is no God, overlooks that many theologians do not believe in “ex nihilo” but rather God is “creatio ex deo” (creation out of being God). The idea being express by some theologians like Thomas Jay Oord, is that God did not create out of nothing but rather from pre-existing matter. In a sense this matter is also eternal as God is the “eternal creator” who is and has been and never changes. [5] A simple reading of Genesis shows that there was “something” and not “nothing” with God:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Note that there are at least two other things with God here: “the deep” or in the King James, “the abyss” and the “waters”. These two things qualify as matter in a very real sense. Thomas Jay Oord points out that creation ex nihilo is not even biblical as he states:

Following the reference to the Spirit hovering over the primordial chaos, Genesis speaks of darkness covering the “face of the deep.” The “deep” in this last phrase, tehom in Hebrew refers to something nondivine and primordially present when God began to create. Biblical scholar Brevard Childs says, “the tehom signifies here the primeval waters which were also uncreated.” [6]

Thomas Jay Oord also points out “2 Peter 3:5 supports this interpretation”: [7]

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

So the idea that matter is eternal does not harm the argument for the existence of God, but in fact may support the truth of the existence of God. If we view creation as more multidimensional than the Platonist dualism, we then see truth is expanded as our knowing expands. Doubting does not have to be an end, but rather an opportunity to step further in faith. The self-realization that we are NOT God and God is God and that we are His creation (as imperfect as we are), nullifies the arrogance of modernism. Postmodernism then opens doors to see a bigger picture of God instead of bringing a Nietzsche style death.

---

[1] (Wright 1998)

[2] Ibid

[3] (1 John 4:19, NIV)

[4] (Sire 2004, p. 216-219)

[5] (Oord 2010, p. 101)

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

Bibliography

Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. 2001 - 2012 BrainyQuote. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dietrich_bonhoeffer.html (accessed 6 19, 2012).

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Second. Augsburg Fortress: Fortress Press, 2005.

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: a theology. Danvers: Chalice Press, 2010.

Palmer, M.D. Elements of a Christian Worldview. 2nd. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2002.

Sire, J.W. The Universe Next Door. Madison, WI: Inter Varsity Press, 2004.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma. 1998. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Resurrection_Postmodern.htm (accessed June 19, 2012).

POSTMODERNISM: DARING TO DECONSTRUCT CHRISTIANITY: Part 1

This is a paper I wrote on using the tools of Postmodernism. I will be posting it in parts as it is too long for just one blog post. So, here is part 1. Here is Part two

Here is part three

Picture Source

A defining moment

To begin this journey to understand if or how postmodernism can either hurt or help Christianity there must be a working definition. While some assert that Postmodernism is too wide to define, many others tend toward an oversimplification of a complex but possibly helpful tool that some elements of Postmodernism lets people discover. Many view Postmodernism as an infection from atheism. Nietzsche’s famous “God is dead.” is quoted often to show the damage that society may fall into if its philosophy or values are questioned^[1].  However, many forget that Nietzsche was using a fictional “madman” to show that if people are not careful with our values, can kill God. Stating another way, if we are not careful to check what we believe and even take the courage to question the very core values of our belief system we lose sight of gaining truth. While there is the same danger of falling into the issues and pitfalls of Postmodernism as many have with Modernism (without realizing how deep he or she has fallen into the pit), the tools of Postmodernism may and has in some sense help redeem the power and truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

As Sire indicates, even Ihab Hassan, “who is thought to be the first scholar to write on Postmodernism” confesses, “I know less about postmodernism today than I did thirty years ago [1971].While the definition itself is an issue, Mark Lilla states about postmodernism, “is long on attitude and short on arguments.” ^[2]

However, one must not fear the inability to have a clear definition (which in an ironic twist is the very need, want, and desire, of modernism) and remember the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said, “A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”[3] So, even without a clear definition, a person of faith in Jesus Christ can move forward knowing that while there is no way to prove God’s existence, there is this substance we call faith. If we truly trust God, God can withstand any question or attempt to dismantle ideas or even truths; as God is God.

To question “truth” is not to hate it or defy it unless the motive and attitude behind the question as in the case in Genesis where Satan questions God’s words to Adam and Eve[4]. However, like Jacob who wrestled with the Angel (who many believe to be the pre-incarnate Jesus), we are called to wrestle with God (not to be confused with “wrestling against God”).

N.T. Wright comes closest to helping understand what is happening with Postmodernism:

This quite sudden and threatening transition is bound up with [the] movement in recent years from what has been called modernism to what is being called postmodernism. To oversimplify, this has focused on three areas.

First, knowledge and truth. Where modernism thought it could know things objectively about the world, postmodernism has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge. Everybody has a point of view, and that point of view distorts. Everybody describes things the way that suits them. There is no such thing as objective truth. Likewise, there are no such things as objective values, only preferences[5].

      N.T Wright goes on to explain that in Modernity, Descartes ‘s cogito ergo sum or the almighty “I” of individualism has been replaced with a deconstructed self. [6] This deconstructed self has become an “accidental meeting place of conflicting forces and impulses.” [7]    Third, N.T. Wright looks at the narrative that modernity created and holds it with suspect. [8]   However, as this is the Postmodern Age, preaching the Modernist Gospel “cannot be done”. [9]

Still for want of someone in need of any sort of definition, looking at Postmodernism as “a worldview that questions worldviews” is about as close as definition as possible. [10] With this as a working definition, the question to ask is whether the questioning is wrong or brings hope or despair? Most important, as N.T. Wright asks, “What does all this have to say about Christian mission in a postmodern world?” [11]

Part of the despair or perhaps eye-opening truth is that many postmodernist see the system (whatever it may be) as failing or worse a point of power in which evil wants to control him or her. We read this in the newspaper today as people hit the streets in protest as in the On Wall Street (OWS). The OWS see the gulf between the rich and poor. The OWS see the burden debt that overshadows and kills the narrative of the American Dream. This, of course, is not just happening in the USA but in Australia and even the Middle East as Iranians struggle for freedom against a corrupt and powerful regime. The world is a mess and while many desire to use peaceful means, even the authorities, whom we voted for or hired to serve and protect us, have turned it all into a game of violence. To turn a phrase uttered by Paul the Apostle in Philippians 3:8, “All is skubala.”  There seems to be no hope.

Likewise in the spiritual sense, the world (on one hand), seems more open to discussions of God and Jesus. However, many people still fear to utter a question against the local church or pastor, let alone the Bible or long held doctrines. Is the act of deconstruction a damnable sin? Does questioning if one believes in inerrancy or the virgin birth in itself make one a “heretic”? In fact the very word heretic is worn proudly by people I know and love and yet I see their faith clearer than those tossing the word at them.

The Christian is to grow in the love of Christ and not be held back by fear. 1 John 4:18 “There is not fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” While truth of corruption and power and narratives that have been proven horribly wrong (such as General Custer was a hero and not a mass murderer of women and children), truth also sets us free. Even Martin Luther understood that at times people need to tear down and question what they have believed if it does not go with the accepted norm. A brief reading of the 95 Thesis shows how far the accepted truth had gone until one person began to notice something was wrong. For example:

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or to be surely remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven. [12]

            To deconstruct in and of its self is not evil and in a sense is a reflection of the call to come to Christ. We are called to “die to self” 1 Peter 2:24 states this: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (EVS).

            In chapter eight of Michael Palmer’s Elements of a Christian Worldview C.B. Johns and V.W. White write of a college freshman named Jeff. Jeff is a good person and does all the right things. Jeff derives his morals and ethics from the Bible yet as explained in the Elements of a Christian Worldview, this does not mean Jeff is equipped to face the Postmodern world. This book attempts to explain that Jeff needs to have a “the heart and the mind of a Christian” and “this will transform his view of reality.” [13] This sounds good and yet without Christ being Jeff’s reality, just being a Christian in the Postmodern world is not enough. Of course I understand what Palmer is getting at. However, in the real-world the word “Christian” itself is held suspect and often looked at as another fundamentalist or even ignorant worldview. Many who hold faith in Jesus have stopped using “Christian” as they feel it does not have much to do with their faith and is tainted. The idea of a “Christian mind” brings images of Fred Phelps and the hate he spreads instead of the original meaning of “little Christ”.

---

[1] (Sire 2004, p.214)

[2] Ibid p. 215

[3] (Brainy Quotes 2001 - 2012 BrainyQuote)

[4] (Genesis 3:1-7)

[5] (Wright 1998)

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] (Sire 2004, p. 217)

[11] (Wright 1998)

[12] (Luther 2005, p. 41)

[13] (Palmer 2002, p. 284)

 Bibliography

Brainy Quotes. Brainy Quotes. 2001 - 2012 BrainyQuote. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dietrich_bonhoeffer.html (accessed 6 19, 2012).

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Second. Augsburg Fortress: Fortress Press, 2005.

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: a theology. Danvers: Chalice Press, 2010.

Palmer, M.D. Elements of a Christian Worldview. 2nd. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2002.

Sire, J.W. The Universe Next Door. Madison, WI: Inter Varsity Press, 2004.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma. 1998. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Resurrection_Postmodern.htm (accessed June 19, 2012).

Thoughts on the Abrahamic covenant

Picture source with a very interesting blog post itself.

Been a while since I did a blog post so I figured I submit this. This is from my class discussion at Regent University. The topic was our thoughts on the Abrahamic covenant. 

One highlight of the Abrahamic covenant is that it showed that while one of faith may sin, grace still abounds.  The example I refer to is the issue with Hagar and Ishmael. ^[1]  While Sara had a lapse of faith and Abram may have had other misplaced judgment, God not only blessed Abram, but gave grace and changed Abram’s name to Abraham and gave a greater promise. ^[2] Though, I somewhat smile that initially the covenant was one sided, later Abraham was told to circumcise himself and whole household, which makes me cringe whenever I read it. ^[3] My smile is from wondering how connected the tie between circumcision and the issues with Hagar and Ishmael were.

The similarities between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant is the extension of grace and expansion of the initial covenant. Like with the Abrahamic covenant God extends grace to a people who did nothing but are descendants of Abraham. ^[4] God keeps his promise to Abraham as now the Hebrews are a great nation. ^[5]  The differences between the two covenants are that of community separation and individual separation to be holy unto God. As I recall from my past studies, both covenants were based on a type of contract. ^[6] Abram’s cutting of the carcass was a type of contract used at the time. Likewise the Mosaic covenant was based on ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties with some differences. ^[7] Again, the overall theme is God’s grace to both a person (Abraham) and a nation (the Hebrews). For me, this shows God’s overall worthiness to keep his word. This theme is displayed from Genesis after the fall and even to Cain after slaying Able. While man progressively steps further from God, his hands of grace reach more and more out to his beloved created image. This theme that fully is seen later in Christ Jesus fulfilling the covenant by not only His life and death, but his resurrection.

---------------------------------------------------

1.  1.     (Genesis 16 n.d.)

2.   2;    (Genesis 16; 17)

3.    3/  Ibid

4.   4.    (Genesis 17: 9-10)

5.    5.   (Exodus 2:25)

6.    6.   (Bibletools.com 2012)

7.    7.   (Hill 2009)

Citations

Bibletools.com. Covenant, Symbolized by Divided Carcasses. 2012. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/6867/Covenant-Symbolized-by-Divided-Carcasses.htm (accessed 6 21, 2012).

"Genesis 16." (NIV)

"Genesis 17." (NIV)

"Exodus 2: 25." (NIV)

Hill, Andrew E and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament,. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

---

Was Jesus the smartest man who ever lived?

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." - Charles Darwin

"The smartest and most intelligent Man I know never opened a book. His name: JESUS He's that Awesome!!" - Jane Rivera via Twitter

My class was discussing whether Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived. This question was prompted by Dallas Willard and for some reason I had a issue with it. The DQ in my class has 16 students and up to this point only three had attempted to answer the DQ. To amuse myself I submitted this.

Because of the lack of participation in the DQ I will begin my personal Socratic dialog in an attempt to meet the attendance requirements.  This in no way is an attack on anyone’s person, but only an attempt to personally work through the reading of this week.  This, in essence, was my own personal dialog as I wrestled with this material. I will be speaking as me, myself, and I.

Me: The issue of Jesus being the smartest man who ever lived seems to overlook the understanding of Kenosis that is taught in the Bible. Jesus emptied Himself and became a man at the incarnation. In doing so Jesus did not grasp at the attempt to be equal with God.

Myself: Then would this make Jesus vulnerable and much as all of humanity?

Me: Yes, in fact I would say that Jesus in His incarnation became “frail” in the sense that He in His humanity and human form was just like all of us. Jesus was much like us except in His complete dependence on The Father.  

I: I am not sure I am comfortable with a Jesus that is so--- human.

Me: If Jesus was not human as we are—so to say, the average Joe—his death would not be “for all”. To make Jesus an elitist of attached to any label then means that people not under that label are not acceptable. Much like how we see the labels of political destroying the pure view of Jesus today. If Jesus is a Republican, then there is no way that a Liberal Democrat can be saved. They are not like Jesus that we created under the labeled banner.

Myself: So how does this apply to academia or the “academic calling”?

Me: To label Jesus the “smartest man who ever lived” then makes the average human much less than the ideal the label creates. I believe,  instead of allowing a “ calling” to be pure, using this labeled “smartest man” creates a false image of Jesus to justify the calling. A true calling does not need justification; it calls for stepping out in faith. Meanings, if you are called to an ivory tower, then do so to the glory of God. If you are called to dig wells in Africa, do so to the glory of God. If you are called to play basketball or football or, in fact, do anything, do so to the glory of God. We do not need to justify what God calls us to do because God already justified us.

Myself: What of the post-resurrection Jesus? How does this Kenosis theology fit into that?

Me: Jesus is shown in the Bible to have the same scars he received on the Cross. He showed the pierced hands and feet to Thomas who then put his hand into Jesus side. Jesus retained his humanity though in a different form thus still retained his frailty only in the imperishable and incorruptible form. Jesus was still “human”, but also remember He was the New Man born of Heaven and not tainted with the issue of the degretative self-view we have held onto since the Adam and Eve in the Garden. In this lack of a degretative self-view, Jesus was able to be totally dependent on the Father as He saw things as the Father saw them and did not have the filter of self-blindness that comes with sin.

Myself: Interesting.

I: I will have to ponder on this a bit and get back to you.

Me: thanks for listening.  

(BTW, I feel such pain for the ignorance of Jane.)

  

Thoughts on Jim Palmer's post

First read this post by Jim Palmer. Unlearning the ‘R’-word

I saw Jim's post as "baby step" toward a fuller understanding of what repentance means. This in no way means I see it as unimportant. I see it as the one-time decision and this is the first step of the renewing that continues as we grow. Yet, as it is foundational, one cannot lay again a foundation of repentance, but must learn to walk in repentance in faith. One cannot go back and re-repent as that is putting Jesus again into public ridicule and crucifying Him over and over again. Instead, we repent and learn to walk in this new mindset by confessing to God and others. Confession means we are humble and are acting upon the initial internal repentance. 

We talked about someone falling away. Sometimes we view this as losing salvation... and I think that is wrong and confuses more people. I see that most often, Jesus has revealed an aspect of "religion" that we must choose to reject as not of Christ. However, since many see these revealed things as essentials, those people who see them often are deemed fallen away when in fact they are closer to following Jesus than ever. These are the people I work with and reach. They often are just confused by "religion" and never fell from Jesus. but fell back into religious works. 

The rejection of religious works for the approval of God is most often what Paul speaks about in his writings. It is impossible to fall away from God as God is God... He is God of Heaven and Hell... (however you may interpret that.) Nothing can separate us from the Love of God... as God is Love. If God begins a good work in us, He is faithful to complete it... and if He does not, then God is a liar... so perseverance itself comes from God once a person can understand it.

Falling from Grace is not the same as losing salvation. One can return to confessional  life as they understand that repentance was done... and acknowledge it as real the first time.