.jpg)
I was reading a Puritan Board discussion the other day about the morality of human desire that got me thinking.
Believers on both sides of the ongoing divine determinism argument can probably agree scripture teaches that neither Christians nor unbelievers are able to perform any eternally valuable works without the help of God in some sense. Commenters cite a long list of verses including John 15:5 and Psalm 127:1 to make the case.
Fair enough, I can buy that.
.jpg)
“Is Mary the mother of God?”
There is a kind of childish logical syllogism drawn by some in which the budding theologian goes from the true statements “Mary was the mother of Jesus” and “Jesus is God” to “Mary is the mother of God”. The final claim is simply untrue, not to mention blasphemous, depending on what those who say it or write it intend by it. The error is a decent example of the informal fallacy we call false equivalence, which involves consciously or unconsciously substituting one term for another in a syllogism where the terms are not precisely identical. Asparagus is a vegetable. That does not make it the only type of vegetable in existence.
Think of it this way: if Jesus is God, does that mean God is Jesus?
.jpg)
On Wednesday of this week, I tackled critics who set in opposition the gospel preached by the apostle Paul and the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the synoptic gospels, alleging they disagree, particularly with respect to the issue of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. One critic I quoted claims Paul invented the atonement concept out of whole cloth. In response, I pointed out we should hardly expect to find fully developed teaching about atonement in the gospels, which record for the most part what took place leading up to the cross, and do not attempt to explore its implications.
Instead, I argued, in the synoptics we should expect to find hints, premonitions and suggestions that our Lord was doing something far grander and more significant in dying than simply paying the traditional price exacted from prophets for telling the truth.
Lo and behold, that is exactly what we find.
.jpg)
Hebrew language and law distinguish between that which a man dedicated to God and that which he devoted. Both involved setting something apart, but the latter was set apart irrevocably. If a man devoted some object to the Lord, it became “most holy” or “consecrated”, set apart such that he could not buy it back for his ordinary (profane, common) use. The word for that is ḥāram, from ḥērem, meaning “cursed”. In the context of war or when under the sentence of capital punishment, the same term is variously translated “completely destroy”, “utterly destroy” or, my personal favorite, “devote to destruction”.
That word appears here in verse 11 in association with the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, who refused to come to Mizpah and fight on behalf of Israel against Benjamin.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
In a poem entitled “Bishop Blougram’s Apology”, Robert Browning wrote these words:
“That way
Over the mountain, which who stands upon
Is apt to doubt if it be meant for a road;
While, if he views it from the waste itself,
Up goes the line there, plain from base to brow,
Not vague, mistakeable! what’s a break or two
Seen from the unbroken desert either side?
And then (to bring in fresh philosophy)
What if the breaks themselves should prove at last
The most consummate of contrivances
To train a man’s eye, teach him what is faith?”
Tom: Wow, I can relate. Immanuel Can, are Christians supposed to admit we ever have moments when we struggle with doubt?
The law is not a fun ride.
As the disciples of old concluded, it was actually quite impossible to keep. The nation of Israel had tried ... and tried ... and tried ... but never hard enough, and never with success for very long. No wonder the disciples reduced their expectations on the new Gentile converts. You might say that law-keeping had really turned out to be a failed project. Badly failed.
So, you might be forgiven if, today, with the prospect of keeping all the commandments in the Bible, Christians pull back and halt. It was bad enough when the Old Testament commandments were tried. How much worse is it to think of all the additional commandments added in the New? Fatigue sets in, even when we think of a task like that.
The law wears us out.
.jpg)
Brace yourselves for a pair of lengthy but necessary posts. The error they address has been around for ages, but people are still circulating it online. Others have certainly pushed back against it, but we’ve never addressed it here at any length, and I think it’s worth some careful analysis.
Critics of Christianity often try to set the teaching of the gospels, in particular the synoptics, against the teaching of the apostle Paul in his epistles. They allege that the gospel preached by Paul contradicts and even “destroys” the teaching of Jesus. That’s a claim that cries out for rebuttal from the pages of scripture. If true, it presents a major difficulty for the Christian faith.
One of the areas in which Paul and Jesus allegedly differ is the subject of atonement.
Peter broadly categorizes the gifts of the Holy Spirit under the headings of speaking and service. There are verbal gifts and non-verbal gifts. He then says anyone who speaks should do so “as one who speaks oracles of God”. That’s a high standard and a challenge for everyone who attempts to explain the Bible to others. Faithful exposition requires making the text understandable to the best of our ability as the Holy Spirit leads, interpreting scripture with scripture.
A problem: in most meetings of the church these days, the opportunity to ask questions during or after a sermon does not exist.
.jpg)
“Is nagging a Christian tactic?”
Nagging is often associated with frustrated wives and mothers, perhaps unfairly. Passive aggressive men do it too. Try the words “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a hundred times” with a little ‘Y’ chromosome on them, and you’ll quickly think of somebody male in your life with the habit of saying considerably more than is useful or necessary. I definitely did.
In any case, neither of my parents were inclined to nag. My early home life was happily unmarked by the irritation that persistent verbal harassment provokes.
Premastication or kiss feeding is the act of breaking down food by chewing it for those who can’t yet chew, then passing the pulped food mouth to mouth. Most mother apes do it for their offspring. Pigeons and parrots do something similar, but they regurgitate. Some human cultures do it too.
I have to confess some of what I’m hearing from church platforms these days puzzles me. It’s not that it’s wrong, exactly; most of the Bible teaching in the churches I frequent is quite orthodox in terms of its conclusions. Nobody is indulging in heretical craziness or flights of wild fancy. Nor are speakers subjecting their audiences to a barrage of sentimental anecdotes at the expense of biblical content, as I found was common in the late eighties.
It’s more like the art of expounding the text of scripture has suddenly gone AWOL, and I miss it. No small number of Bible teachers have never learned to chew their food before they pass it on.
.jpg)
At dinner with Christian friends a few days ago, we discussed the subject of how we should best apply New Testament principles to a situation outside regular local church meetings. Nowhere in the NT do we have either precept or example concerning how to conduct a series of Bible teaching meetings of women gathering from multiple local churches. Whose authority are they under? Which normal church practices should they observe in such a context and which are they free to ignore? Inquiring minds wanted to know, including the men.
Unsurprisingly, despite most of us being relatively mature in the faith, we quickly found we disagreed.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: Immanuel Can is sending me bad things again. And I’m not entirely sure how to respond. This time it’s Moody Publishers’ “Post Sunday”, in which Moody extols one of its new releases. This one is a Hannah Anderson special in which the author holds forth on the “lameness” of the church. Okay, I can’t stop there: the church is lame (according to Hannah) because she has crippled herself. In the words of Ms Anderson, we have failed to equip “Bible women” because we “don’t have a vision for how God could use them for His glory.”
Help me out here: what are “Bible women”?
True story: When I was in my early university career, I was friends with a girl whose father taught history there. One of his students exhibited a most peculiar propensity in his essays; and that is, that no matter what question he was asked, he always answered, “God did it.”
What caused the Napoleonic Wars?
“God did.”
“Heretic” is a strong word.
As an enthusiastic young believer, I used to hurl the epithet around a fair bit, as did several of my equally enthusiastic friends. We were excited about the things we were discovering in the word of God and determined to practice them. Anyone who didn’t agree with our views of scripture obviously had serious spiritual problems. Perhaps they were merely dull or deluded … or maybe they were the dreaded “H” word.
Yeah, we didn’t do nuance much.