God is Different

Sermon preached 6-5-11 at Country Bible Church.

Dispensationalism Wrapup

Whether you are replacement (i.e. Amillenial, Covenant, Reformed) or premillenial/dispensational in your eschatology (theology of last things) - you should read this summation of Dispensationalism by Vlach. Here are some excerpts:

Dispensationalism has undergone significant developments throughout the years but Dispensationalism has a core set of beliefs that have remained stable, namely: (1) historical-grammatical hermeneutics should be applied to all aspects of Scripture including both testaments; (2) the NT does not reinterpret the OT; (3) OT promises and covenants that have not been fulfilled yet must be literally fulfilled in the future; and (4) there will be both a salvation and restoration of the nation Israel in the future.

The strength of Dispensationalism is found in its hermeneutic of a historical-grammatical approach to all Scripture including the OT, and its rejection of NT reinterpretation of the OT.

Another strength of Dispensationalism is found in its holistic understanding of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants and how these intertwine with each other. It is better to base one’s theology on covenants explicitly discussed in the Bible than covenants that are not clearly seen or emphasized in Scripture.

(HT: Todd Bolen)

Yes.

See MacArthur's recent discussion of Rob Bell - here, here, here, and here.

Rob Bell's Questions (Velvet Elvis, 26-27)

"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"

(John MacArthur) Bell compares the Christian faith to a large trampoline, with its cardinal doctrines (truths evangelicals have historically deemed essential) functioning like the springs that support the jumping platform. The individual springs aren’t absolutely essential, Bell says—including the virgin birth:

What if that spring [the virgin birth] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? . . . If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?” (26-27)

To synthesize the above rambling questions into one coherent inquiry you might say Bell is asking the following question - "Does the disproving of any of the the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith mean that it, as a functioning belief system, becomes invalid and untruthful?" Bell allows his artistic rhetorical questions and flair for mysterious meaning answer the question with a negation. However, I must side with Paul (1 Cor. 15:17-19) and answer thusly, "Yes."

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 3

Part 3 and conclusion of our discussion - it's long, but hopefully instructive. For context see Part 1 and Part 2. 

Friend #1 Reply 
 

I can tell you I study the Bible cover to cover... Why though? Because I have a command to do it in ...2 Timothy 2:15 ... In the modern versions there is no command to study. The English language has "evolved" into "Do your best.." or some other "interpretation" as you call it..

Now I believe the Bible was given by inspiration and we have the perfect translation in the KJV.  The modern translators do not believe we have a perfect word of God in English.
  
You say we have an abundance of textual data, much more than in the 17th century. Which is true. However, in my opinion this only solidifies the KJV, in that approximately 99% of the newest discovered manuscripts agree with the KJV. The remaining 1% is the difference between modern translations & the KJV.

Now I didn't say we have less information or a less complete text than they did in 1611.. I said there hasn't been anything discovered that need be added to the Bible.

The fact is that over 5000 manuscripts exist of the Greek new testament & for the most part, these manuscripts along with KJV & modern translations agree. When they do not agree, modern translators refer to about 5 manuscripts because they are the oldest, which disagree with the majority manuscripts & the KJV, as opposed to the rest of the 4,995+...

Now I'm no Greek or Hebrew expert, but I can read English, & I know when somethin ain't right..
I'll give you an example..
Take your NIV & turn to Matthew 5:22, "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement...anyone who says 'you fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell" Why, Jesus Christ was angry when he overthrew the tables in the temple in Mark 11 & he called the Pharisees fools in Matthew 23:17. You believe he is in danger of the lake of fire? Well - why not? The "oldest & most reliable" texts along with the NIV & others say that. But wait, the verse left something out.  I'm sure you know, but if you don't know, you can check your KJV to see what it is (note: KJV has "angry without cause"). This "best text" you speak of OMITS a very important piece of scripture & forces Mark 11 & Matthew 23:17 to CONTRADICT Hebrews 4:15.  Get out a Bible and check it out.. & I can give many more examples, this is just the one that popped in my head

I absolutely "presume" to have a perfect uncorrupted text, that's why I believe it! If you've got a corrupt bible with errors, what are you doin believing it? How do you know what's corrupted & what's not? I'm no Bible corrector, but it seems as though the modern translators thought it fit to correct the Bible & thus effectively trick you & other millions into thinking that God can't & didn't promise to preserve his word. 

Psalm 12: 6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
 
Now read those verses in your NIV (NIV - “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.” (Psalms 12:6–7 NIV)). What a convenient verse to change the meaning of! I'm no Greek or Hebrew expert, but I'm not too blind to see when someone is trying to fool around with the WORDS of God.

My Response

This will be my last post - unless there are clarification questions - I am not in to this whole debate thing for debate's sake.

To Friend #2 - the only reason I commented on this post is that I thought that it would be instructive. I hope it has been.

To Friend #1 - the KJV was never meant to be the end all translation. If it is truly the "perfect" transmitted text does that mean that God's word was only preserved perfectly in the King's English? What about the people who lived before the English translation of the Bible? Was there a progression of perfect texts - or was the perfect only given in 1611? What about German, French, Spanish (and the rest of the other languages) speaking peoples do they just get the proverbial "shaft" with regards to God's continued perfect revelation? Do you see how asinine and arbitrary that is? Broaden your horizons - the world did not begin nor will it likely end with the English language.

Not sure where you are getting your facts about textual criticism - but you are dead wrong on a number of issues.

First of all you dumb down the discipline - it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Manuscripts are classified by families of texts (Byzantium, Alexandrium, etc.) - an error or alternate text is usually copied and continued from the "parent" text down through the rest of the family. If you feel so strongly on the issue - learn Greek, learn Hebrew, start studying textual criticism. I am amazed that you are so confident because you "know English... and known when something aint right." Those are hardly qualifiers for speaking truth about textual criticism and the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration. Quite honestly, I am shocked that you would not at least listen to what I have to say (I do know Hebrew and Greek and have a M.A. in the Hebrew Bible - so it's not like I don't have exposure in this field) - I am not trying to debate you for debate's sake. Common sense and theological fortitude are great traits - but stubbornness and blindness to the reality of easily recognizable truths are extremely unhelpful attributes. So please - I beg you - listen to what I have to say. This is not a light issue - this issue deals with how you approach the word of God - his revelation to you.

Second 1% (and the number is higher than that) of a document as large as the Greek NT is a large number of variance. More importantly - what you say about 5,000 texts = 4,995 vs. 5 makes absolutely no sense at all for a number or reasons. Most importantly - it's simply not true - the differences in texts don't decrease over time - they multiply. The Bible did not come with some "deleted scenes" that need be placed back into their original locale. If there are differences in later texts that's because they crept in through errors of transmission over time. Logically speaking - how in the world do later texts have more "complete texts"? How do they have more verses or explanations? If the text was not there in any of the earliest manuscripts - how could it be in the later texts?

Third - your so-called "examples" are randomly picked prooftexts with no contextual relationship to one another - they ultimately say nothing about the original text or the legitimacy of one translation over another. If you were to study these verses in any translation including the KJV - you would understand that there is no contradiction at all - in Matt. 5:22 Jesus is talking in the context of "murder" (Matt. 5:21) - he is saying - having murderous hatred that leads you to call someone a fool is a sin worthy of hell's flames - not anger itself. This point is abundantly obvious based on the context and Jesus' form of discourse throughout the Sermon on the Mount. There is no voodoo attached to the word "fool" or "raca" - Jesus is giving outward examples of inward feelings - those outward examples need not always be expressions of those inward feelings - the tone is clear. If you have more examples along these lines - I have no desire to hear them - I can find my own prooftexts and apparent contradictions. The Bible is not some mathbook that you can prove 2+2=4 - it's language with nuance, emphasis and different contexts. If you make it out to be math - it will contradict itself throughout - regardless of translation.

Fourth - to answer your question - "how do you know what's corrupted and what's not?" Answer - textual criticism. The Greek NT is in a class all by itself - for all of the major ancient texts like Josephus, Philo, Homer - we have a handful of copies. For the Greek NT we have thousands of manuscripts - that is amazing! It's a witness to the Word of God's life-changing, history-altering power - the fact that men for two millenia have rigorously and as accurately as possible copied this text of texts speaks to its immeasurable impact upon human history and divine interaction. The doctrine of inerrancy does not need to be updated to fit 21st cent. fears. Quite simply you have no theological reason to presume or believe that God's Word has been preserved perfectly - you base your entire belief of perfected continuity of text on fear. Fear that if we don't have the perfect autograph copy than we don't have a good text. Well I have earth-shattering news for you - never ever, ever in God's Word does it say anything about the preservation of the biblical record in either an imperfected or perfected state.

By contrast - we have an example in the Bible where God's Word was lost! Perish the thought. In the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8) the "Law of the Lord" was found by people working in the temple. That means that for at least a generation or two the people of Israel, God's chosen, were without the Bible! In the intervening time since then -say around 1610 did God change the way he does business and say? - "Do you see my servant James? The English have the Tyndale Bible but it's not up to snuff - no longer will my children lose my perfect word -next year I am going to make sure that that old wizenheimer, King James, gets my perfect word that way 21st cent. American Christians can still speak colloquial English - after all when they write 'speak' - they should have written 'spake.'" In this debate - the only "tricking" going on is by those who would have the church believe that King James' translators were on par with apostolic authority (you realize that this was the same King James that caused the Mayflower? Not exactly the epitome of Christian virtue).

Lastly - Ps. 12 - the text that you quote as God's promise to preserve his word. This text has nothing to do with the continued perfection of the text of the Bible and everything to do with God's promise to keep the words that he speaks. Meaning that if God says that he has chosen Israel he will fulfill his vows - if he has promised that he will save those who trust in him - then he will sovereignly and judicially save them. Again - the context is so clear and obvious that you would have to be blind to say that it's talking about God's preservation of his written word. Actually this verse acts as a perfect metaphor for textual criticism. "The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times." Every ancient manuscript of the Greek NT acts as a refinement of our view of the actual text - the slag (waste) of time and error of transmission is melted away through each refinement. Because of this, based on the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts - I will state again - boldly and confidently - the English translations that we possess today are extremely close to the Greek NT and Hebrew OT. This reality is only from a gracious gift from God to the world and his universal church - not a promise that he explicitly promised or implicitly implied to fulfill.

In conclusion I have two imperatives that I hope you listen to -1. use any translation you like, if it's the KJV - fine, it contains God's word and was amazingly accurate for its time, if it's the accursed NIV or it's devil-sister the ESV, study all the more. 2. Friend #1, self-proclaimed skeptic, don't place your hope in a theology that is outside of the bible - the bible is God's revelation to man, that is, it is the means by which we come to know him. Don't make it an end in itself. If you base your hope on a theological truth alien to scripture - how sound is that hope? Christ's saving sacrificial work is the only hope that we have - the only remedy to the maladies of doubt and skepticism. Don't place your hope in King James' translators. Or you might end up like this guy...



(HT: Craig Dunning)

Friend #1 Response 

I think this is something we will just have to disagree on. Regardless, you seem like a well-meaning, respectable, well-educated Christian, and I admire your credentials.

I just urge you to reconsider the fact that the Bible you read every day is corrupted and imperfect. Don't you think that having a reliable and infallible book is essential to our faith? I know Greek & Hebrew as well, I'm no expert, but If God came down from heaven & gave me the original autographs, I'd still read my KJV. Greek is a dead language & useless to winning the lost & Hebrew is spoken by less that 1% of the world. He's magnified HIS WORD above all His precious name.  If you believe He hasn't preserved his word down through the generations forever, I encourage you to look at psalm 12:7 again, in Hebrew.

I have answers to your other questions such as where was the perfect Bible before 1611, the accusation that I took Matthew 5:22 out of context, & so forth. But I do not want to be argumentative. Those answers I'm sure you are capable of finding if you want them.

I've studied the Alexandrium, the Sinaiticus & the Vaticanus.. You can call your Bible corrupt, but leave mine out of it please.
 
The Bible said that there will be a famine in the last days of hearing His words.. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways... So when you have two bibles telling you two different things in the same verse, (many examples IN CONTEXT) well simply put, 2+2=4

This is my last post as well, Chris, nice talking with you. I saw your pictures, I hope to make it over to Jerusalem someday in the near future. I'm sure that was a great experience! I've listened to everything you've said, keep looking into this issue, as I will do the same.

We're obviously not going to convince each other, there is no need to continue this "debate". You read over 100 translations and believe them all... I read over 100 translations and believe 1.

One thing we do know is that His Word is settled in Heaven, & I'll be glad one day when I can ask Him face to face instead of having to deal with all this mess down here! Until then we'll just have to keep looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ!

My Final Response

Friend #1 - I enjoyed the discussion. I completely disagree with you - but that does not mean that we are not brothers in Christ - have a great Easter!

Friend #1 Final Response

I completely disagree with you too & hope to meet you someday, maybe we could find some things we agree on. 

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 2

For the first part of this discussion see here. The following conversation continues in a discussion of the the main issue involved - perfect preservation of the inspired word.

In order to grasp the gravity and nature of this issue - pertinent questions such as the following must be asked:  Does the Bible say that it would be preserved for all time in a state of perfection? Does it need to be "perfect" to be trusted? How close to the original are our modern translations? In what follows - I seek to answer those questions through the means of debate with a friend who holds to KJV primacy.

Friend #2 Response to my Interjection: 

Ok Chris, now I'm not trying to convert you to the KJV or anything like that, the bible you choose is your choice... However, here's what I know. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. You're right, there have been many new discoveries of manuscripts since 1611. BUT, there have been no new READINGS discovered. Meaning nothing new has been found that they didn't already have 400 years ago.

I believe you said more "complete" manuscripts have been found, yet when I read the NIV, I find MANY verses "missing". My favorite is Acts 8:37. So you see, if you have an NIV, you don't have a complete Bible. We can get deeper into the manuscripts they used if you want.

And that isn't all, if you have an NIV, you have a bible which is hard to understand. I'll give you an example, which of these texts makes more sense to a 21st century reader? 

"The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those who provoke God are secure."
OR
"The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure." 

Both come from Job 12:6. I'll give you one guess which one is the NIV.

I'll give you another one. "I will stand at my watch, and stand myself at the ramparts." OR "I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower."
 

Now, you may know what "ramparts" and "marauders" mean, but the majority of 21st century readers don't, although they sing that word in their national anthem 100 times each year. 

The point is, we are not capable of understanding everything that's in that Book. The Bible says that "the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." The Holy Spirit is our interpreter.
When you look at the origins of modern versions, their omissions, & contradictions, it's hard (for me at least because I'm a skeptic of everything) to believe they are the word of God. If you dont think Satan is trying to attack this book, you don't know Satan very well. He started attacking God's words right from the beginning in Genesis 3:1.

Like I said I'm a skeptic to everything, even my own religion & Book, but when you set out to disprove something that can't be disproven, your faith only strengthens. 

Now, try to disprove the modern versions, & see what happens.

My Response:

I am going to have to completely disagree with you - the last 400 years has brought an abundance of textual data that was previously unknown - a cursory look of a textual apparatus of a Greek New Testament makes this plain (see UBS4 or look here http://www.sblgnt.com/.)

More than that the "Textus Receptus" is not even a complete manuscript - but a composite of many different manuscripts put together by Greek scholars just after the Middle Ages (basically it was the forerunner of our modern day Greek New Testaments - a great, pioneering work for its time.) But even they placed a priority on older texts - to say that we have less information or a less complete picture of the Greek NT than those living in the early 17th cent. is completely false.

You are right in saying that the KJV has more words (or verses) than modern English translations - however - you are wrong in assuming that the existence of more words equals a more complete text. Ancient texts that are copied over and over again - by nature become conflated - words and phrases are usually added or corrupted - not lost. In other words, it's far more likely for an ancient scribe to add a few explanatory notes to an account than it would be for that same scribe to omit a paragraph (for instance see the ESV's treatment of Acts 8:37-40, John 8:1-11, Mark 16:9-20). We are not looking for the largest text possible - but the most accurate text possible.

In fact there is an entire discipline founded upon discovering the actual, ancient text by looking at a variety of ancient manuscripts - this discipline is called textual criticism.

In this regard (as I do have a degree in Biblical Languages - not to sound uppity, but just to let you know that I am not coming out of right field with this stuff) - I can speak with complete confidence in saying that our modern English translations are based on the best and earliest ancient texts possible. Sure there are issues related to translation, but you would be lying if you said that the KJV does not have translation issues. Feel free to use the KJV as your Bible - but don't presume to think that you have a better text or a an uncorrupted one.

I am not sure what you mean by contradictions, omissions, etc. in modern English translations. Those issues are related to interpretation - don't mix interpretation with translation. You want to have as accurate a text as possible before you start dismissing it because of its "errors."

While it's certainly true that Satan tries on every occasion to malign God's Word - that does not mean that we need to hold on to a set of assumptions that is without any basis in reality. Namely, that the KJV is the most complete, accurate text of the Bible- this assumption is based on outside influences and has nothing to do with the translation's antiquity. The reality is this - God supernaturally spoke his revelatory truth to men who in turn wrote down those words (2 Tim. 3:16) for their/our instruction - but God said nothing about preserving that text in its perfect, uncorrupted state (it's not the Book of Mormon after all).

I hope that as you study God's Word, regardless of translation, you will be convinced of it's truth and life-changing worth through the illuminating work of the Spirit.

 Look for the conclusion of our discussion - part 3 - tomorrow 

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 1

For some reason the issue of the continued perfect preservation (or lack thereof) of the Bible has been popping up quite often in my life. Of course, this issue is tied directly to KJV (that stands for King James-I-persecuted-Protestants-but-still-somehow-was-elevated-to-Pope-status-among-crazy-American-21st-century-Evangelicals Version) primacy. The following is a recent discussion I had with some friends of mine regarding the larger issue of biblical preservation seen through the lens of the KJV issue. I rarely get into theological debates and rue the thought of arguing for the fun of it (something I did often in college :) - but sometimes there is a chance to influence, a chance to persuade - in this instance I saw a chance and I went for it. Enjoy.

Friend #1 

I have yet to find an error in the king James Version. The same cannot be said of any other version I know of.. The KJV has many presumed errors & problematic texts... But these all can be explained with some deep study...... 

I disagree that the original Hebrew is the only text without error.. Simply because there are no originals there are only copies of the originals.

So be careful with that ESV.. It isn't translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV. 

Friend #2 Response 

Some would call this tragic. Others wouldn't. I personally use KJV, but will, on occasion, refer to ESV or NIV for something that's easier to understand. I think the only real "version" without error is the original one... and that's not the KJV, its the original Hebrew and Greek text. While I do think the seemingly endless reproduction of different versions of the Bible that are required to have changed "X" number of words is a little bit of a bastardization of the text, a money plot by publishers, and just might sometimes get a little close to straying away from the original Hebrew message, I do think some people may need to refer, as I do, to a commentated source in order to understand something every once in a while. Judaism has done this without making 54 different translations... its the Talmud, and contains a commentary on the original and a commentary on the commentary., for applications sake.
that being said, I'm only comfortable saying the absolute FIRST text, in the original old Hebrew and Greek, is the divinely inspired, error free, word of God, to the horn of the yod. 

Friend #1 Response 

The KJV says God preserved his words through the generations, the inspired inerrant scripture CAN'T be just the words on the paper of the original autographs... I can show you some shocking verses if you want...  

My Interjection

If you don't mind - could I interject?  First of all the OT in all modern English translations as well as the KJV is translated from the Masoretic Text (10th cent. AD document). Second the KJV was translated in 1611 when only a few Greek NT texts were available. Since 1611 - something like 2700 Greek manuscripts have been found and deciphered - many of them much older and more complete manuscripts than what the translators of the KJV possessed. 

So what does that mean? Modern English translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV are far and away closer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts than the KJV, because they have the added benefit of 400 years of archaeological discovery and textual critical work. Not to mention that they take into account the evolution of the English language. For example - which one of these texts makes more sense to a 21st cent. reader “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort” or “But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace” (example indebted to one of my favorite teachers) They both are from Acts 17:5 - but the second translation (NIV) is clearly easier to understand for people that live under the US government and not under the monarchy of King James. 

Furthermore - there is absolutely no reason to believe that in 1611 - God decided to pass down the perfect, uncorrupted text. This is the key issue. To state that the KJV is the uncorrupted text is without textual basis and frankly a little prideful - what about the previous 1600 years when English was not the main universal tongue? Did they not have a perfect translation? Was God waiting to reveal the perfect English translation to us Anglo-Saxons?  

to be continued... 

The Road

All animals are gone, all plant life is dead, the sky is progressively getting grayer, the world....colder. There is no more food. Gangs and loners are all that's left. The Man and his Boy are walking to the coast. 

I love the post-apocalyptic genre - ever since reading The Stand by Stephen King I have developed a deep appreciation for depictions of human life after a great disaster.  This is not due to some great attraction to epic, gray landscapes or amazing special effects as displayed in such movies as Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and the Book of Eli.  Those things are nice, but often distract from the fascinating sociological, psychological shifts that (would) occur with the total abdication of modern society and near obliteration of the human race.



"The Road" nails these shifts in society by telling the unbelievably, brutal story of a father and son and their fight to survive in a world that is all-but-dead. Personally, I was both entertained and profoundly shaken by both the gut-wrenching moral dilemmas and exceptional acting. 

Post-apocalyptic scenarios such as those portrayed in "The Road" can effectively display the baseness of humanity.  Horror movies and books are usually only scary, because they make you jump or squirm, what's way more frightening (and I believe in many ways edifying) than jumping in your chair as some knife-wielding masked man makes quick work of his stupid victims - is being shown THIS IS WHAT HUMANITY REALLY LOOKS LIKE WITHOUT RESTRAINT.  The horrifying part in all this is that effective fiction, like "The Road" and "The Stand," puts you directly in the character's scenario and make you ask the question - "what would I do?"

Praying for the Sick

Great article on corporate prayer by David Powlison. Corporate prayer is such a permeating church practice and should be properly understood - Powlison provides a biblical, common-sensical analysis of what corporate prayer should like, particularly as it pertains to praying for the sick. To read the article in its entirety click here.

"When you pray for the sick, and as you teach the sick to seek God for themselves, it ought to be a fiercely thoughtful firestorm." 

"Why don’t people pray beyond the sick list? We want circumstances to improve so that we might feel better and life might get better. These are often honest and good prayers—unless they’re the only requests. Unhinged from the purposes of sanctification and from groaning for the coming of the King, prayers for circumstances become self-centered. Learn, and teach others, to pray with the three-stranded braid of our real need. You will pray far beyond the sick list. And you will pray in a noticeably different way for the sick." 

HT: Ryan Mann

Incarnated Omniscience?

“He (Herod Antipas) sent and had John beheaded in the prison, and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus.

Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself.”
(Matthew 14:10–13 ESV)

Is this contrived sorrow from the Lord or a true example of a voluntary lack of omniscience in his earthly life?

Listen to Doug Bookman's thoughts on the subject.

Beyond Personality by C.S. Lewis - Part 3

Well said Clive Staples, well said.

"And now we begin to see what it is that the New Testament
is always talking about. It talks about Christians 'being
born again'; it talks about them 'putting on Christ'; about
Christ 'being formed in us'; about our coming to 'have the
mind of Christ.'

Put right out of your head the idea that these are only
fancy ways of saying that Christians are to read what Christ
said and try to carry it out as a man may read what
Plato or Marx said and try to carry it out. They mean something
much more than that. They mean that a real Person,
Christ, here and now, in that very room where you're saying
your prayers, is doing things to you. It's not a question
of a good man who died two thousand years ago. It's a living
Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He
was when He created the world, really coming and interfering
with your very self; killing the old natural self in you
and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only
for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes
well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing;
into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way,
has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power,
joy, knowledge and eternity. joy, knowledge and eternity.
And that reminds me of something which has been very
misleading in my talk up to now. I've been talking as if it
were we who did everything. In reality, of course, it is God
who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be done to
us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the pretending.

The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before
Him in fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious
human animal. But He says 'Let us pretend that this is not
a mere creature, but our Son. It is like Christ in so far as
it is a Man, for He became Man. Let us pretend that it is
also like Him in Spirit. Let us treat it as if it were what in fact it is not.
Let us pretend in order to make the pretence
into a reality.' God looks at you as if you were a little
Christ; Christ stands beside you to turn you into one. I
daresay this idea of a divine make-believe sounds rather
strange at first. But, is it so strange really? Isn't that how
the higher thing always raises the lower? A mother teaches
her baby to talk by talking to it as if it understood long
before it really does. We treat our dogs as if they were
'almost human' that's why they really become 'almost
human' in the end." (Lewis, 37-38 - emphasis mine)

Beyond Personality by C.S. Lewis - Part 2

Another quote from this thought-provoking read:

"And the present state of things is this. The two kinds of
life are now not only different (they'd always have been
that, I think) but actually opposed. The natural life in each
of us is something self-centred, something that wants to be
petted and admired, to take advantage of other lives, to
exploit the whole universe. And specially it wants to be
left to itself: to keep well away from anything better or
stronger or higher than it, anything that might make it feel
small. It's afraid of the light and air of the spiritual world,
just as people who've been brought up to be dirty are afraid
of a bath. And in a sense it's quite right. It knows that if
the spiritual life gets hold of it, all its self-centredness and
self-will are going to be killed and it's ready to fight tooth
and nail to avoid that." (Lewis, 25)

Technorati Tags: C.S. Lewis, Theology, Sanctification

Beyond Personality by C.S. Lewis - Part 1

I found this short book by C.S. Lewis the other day - I thought I would share a quote from it that I found to be very compelling.

The following is one of the best explanations for our inability (yet strong desire) to understand the nature of the triune God. Often our metaphors and explanations of the doctrine of the trinity are grounded in concrete ideas (i.e. "aqua trinity" - liquid, gas, ice) and while these are helpful in grasping the basic concepts of the trinity they miss the mark in vital aspects of analogy because they are by nature concrete. The doctrine of the trinity is by nature an abstract idea - warranting of an abstract metaphor.

"I warned you that Theology is practical. The whole purpose
for which we exist is to be thus taken into the life of
God. Wrong ideas about what that life is, will make it
harder. And now, for a few minutes, I must ask you to follow
rather carefully.

You know that in space you can move in three ways to
left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. Every
direction is either one of these three or a compromise between
them. They are called the three dimensions. Now
notice this. If you're using only one dimension, you could
draw only a straight line. If you're using two, you could
draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four
straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions,
you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a
cube a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is
made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would
be a world of straight lines. In a two-dimensional world, you
still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a
three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many
figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance
to more real and more complicated levels, you don't leave
behind you the things you found on the simpler levels; you
still have them, but combined in new ways in ways you
couldn't imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.
principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level.
On the human level one person is one being, and any two
persons are two separate beings just as, in two dimensions
(say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure,
and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine
level you still find personalities; but up there you find them
combined in new ways which we, who don't live on that
level, can't imagine. In God's dimension, so to speak, you
find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being,
just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of
course we can't fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if
we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in
space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can
get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do we are then,
for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea,
however faint, of something super-personal something
more than a person. It is something we could never have
guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels
one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so
well with all the things we know already.

You may ask, 'If we can't imagine a three-personal Being,
what Is the good of talking about Him?' Well, there isn't
any good in talking about Him. The thing that matters is
being actually drawn into that three-personal life, and that
may begin any time tonight, if you like.

What I mean is this. An ordinary simple Christian kneels
down to say his prayers. He is trying to get into touch with
God. But if he is a Christian he knows that what is prompting
him to pray is also God; God, so to speak, inside him.
But he also knows that all his real knowledge of God comes
through Christ, the Man who was God that Christ is standing
beside him, helping him to pray, praying for him. You
see what is happening. God is the thing beyond the whole
universe to which he is praying the goal he's trying to
reach. God is also the thing inside him which is pushing him
on the motive power. God is also the road or bridge along
which he is being pushed to that goal. So that the whole
threefold life of the three-personal Being is actually going
on in that ordinary little bedroom where an ordinary man is
saying his prayers. The man is being caught up into the
higher kind of life what I called Zoe or spiritual life: he is
being pulled into God, by God, while still remaining himself.

And that is how Theology started. People already knew
about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed
to be God; and yet He wasn't the sort of man you could dismiss
as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met
Him again after they'd seen Him killed. And then, after they
had been formed into a little society or community, they
found God somehow inside them as well: directing them,
making them able to do things they couldn't do before. And
when they worked it all out they found they'd got the
Christian definition of the three-personal God." (Lewis, 9-11 - emphasis mine)

If you are interested in reading the book online or downloading the entire book you can do so in a few different formats including pdf here.