Eternal Perspectives

Jeremy is doing a series entitled “Theories of Knowledge and Reality” based on a course he’s taught for many years. The introduction can be accessed here.

Join in as we have our brains alternately stretched or turned to mush. Mostly, delight in some of the stupid questions I’ll undoubtedly ask!

Since I am in a self-imposed recovery from blogaholism, I have begun commenting more and conversing (has that word been copyrighted yet or can I still use it freely?) on other people’s blogs. It’s actually quite enjoyable since it gives me the opportunity to stir things up and disturb the comfortable – which seem to be a couple of my spiritual gifts (from some spirit, anyway).

In light of this, I’m considering re-naming my blog. It would be something like this:

INFERNAL PERSPECTIVES
“From where do you come?” . . . “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” – Job 1:7 (edited emended to suit my purposes)

There is an interesting conversation – whether developing or ending, I do not know – in a couple of the comments(1) sections(2) at PyroManiac. Jonathan began by writing,

The definition of “truth” is of course a major pomo question. Would you care to define “truth” and particularly “timeless truth”? Is truth static and timeless, or is it a dynamic concept vis-à-vis culture with Scripture as the “norming norm”? I think that it is good to think about these things because these are questions that we must be able to intelligently dialogue about with culture at large.

After being wrongly accused and maligned – there are a lot of aspiring Pr 26:7 men out there – he added,

For example, how would [one] interpret Exodus 21:28-32 (goring ox owner gets death for the death of a man, but the death of a slave is only worth 30 shekels) or Exodus 21:20-21 (death of servant only gets punishment, but if beaten servant lives for 1-2 days there will be no punishment because he is “property”). Since these are God’s commands, I assume we would say it was true for ancient Israel. But is it timeless truth? Would it be true for Americans today?

Not getting a response – Jonathan is relentless/persistent/tenacious if nothing else – he followed up the next day with a comment that finally evoked a response from Phil:

Phil, would you say God’s commands here were “passing fashions” or “fads”? I tend to think that they were true then, but not true today. Of course this would mean that not all truth is timeless. Oh boy . . .

To which Phil replied,

I hope you don’t think that just because the Old Covenant gave way to the New, the old ceased being true. Certain laws and ceremonies may no longer be applicable under a new covenant, but they are nonetheless true. I think you are failing to make a proper distinction, and it’s going to get you into serious trouble, if you start to think of truth itself as fluid and changeable.

Since I myself am an aspiring Pr 26:17 kinda guy, I will introject myself into their conversation and (if successful) hijack it for the purposes of pronouncing the wise path to follow and (hopefully) getting a whole lot of traffic from the PyroGuy (cf. Mk 7:28).

There are several issues to address: definitions of words, God’s priorities in history, and the purpose of the Law. I’ll touch upon each of these, some in a bit more depth than others.

Two key words require definition: truth and timeless. I am no philosopher – see Jeremy for more insightful comments regarding truth and time - but it appears to me that the word truth can have various applications; if not, then it would not require adjectives such as “timeless.”

When God provides laws to regulate society, as He did with Israel and does now with the Church, what He prescribes and proscribes is true in each setting; the underlying principle or truth upon which the command is founded, however, is certainly timeless since it reflects the character and person of God. The truth of a regulation may pass but the truth from which the command emerges remains. So truth is timeless even though the commands coming from it may not be.

Jonathan mentions the questionable justice regarding a slave and the apparent devaluing of a servant’s status. Equally troubling, perhaps, are passages such as Deu 22 that regulate justice with regard to women:

23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.
26 “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.
27 “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Moses is providing case law for the Israelites, but it is disturbing to our 21st-century sensibilities to read of the consequences. In the first situation, both the man and the woman die because of their offense against the woman’s husband; in the second, the man dies because he has sinned against his male neighbor, and in the final case, the offended party is not the girl – who may have to marry the rapist – but the girl’s father. Upon what truth, it may be asked, do these laws rest?

There is no easy answer to this problem and most commentators – save those with particular axes to grind – fail to give the inherent problems much consideration. It is tempting – as well as valid – to fall back on the response given by Paul to those “objectors” who questioned the fairness and goodness of God: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom 9:20). But there is another, theological reply to the difficulty that I’ll attempt.

It is obvious throughout the Bible that God’s ultimate priorities are not always what we would have them to be. Whereas we might question the justice of such a practice, God is not chiefly concerned with social reform. This is not to suggest that social justice and equality are not priorities, only that they do not appear to be His highest priorities.

Whether fair or not, the reality of the situation was that a girl who had been raped was not a likely candidate for marriage. By requiring the man to make compensation and forcing him to marry her, God thereby provided for the victim for the rest of her life. There were no government programs to assist single mothers or women and there were few viable sources of income available to them. Given the status of women at the time, God provided more than many surrounding nations and cultures did for such women. The timeless truth? God provides and protects.

Third, it is important to understand the purpose of the Law as given to the Israelites. Ritually, it was to make it possible for a holy God to dwell with an unholy people; thus, various sacrifices were required to demonstrate both the holiness of God and the sinfulness of the people. The law was never intended to be approached as a means to salvation.

Legally and ethically, the law had vital purposes. A key passage is provided by Paul in Gal 3; I’ll make some comments as I go:

21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

As mentioned above, the purpose of the law was not to reveal a means of salvation. Salvation was by faith, as always, and key was the Abrahamic Covenant. The Law was complementary to the covenant, not in competition with it.

22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

There is some debate over what Paul means here. Was the purpose of the law to regulate sin, reveal sin, or both? Good scholars disagree but perhaps the context favors revelation rather than regulation. This seems to be the case since the next verse says:

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

As Scot McKnight points out in the NIV Application Commentary on Galatians, “faith” here is not referring to individual, salvific faith but rather to the era of faith that came with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The word “tutor” here is misleading for, as McKnight says, the law actually serves as more of a guardian or even guard. Here are some additional voices:

“The slave assigned to this role would watch out for the student on his way to school and help him with his manners and schoolwork, but he was not the teacher himself.” – Keener

“The pedagogue here was not a ’schoolmaster’ (KJV) but a slave to whom a son was committed from age six or seven to puberty. These slaves were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them moral training . . . It is better then to understand that the Law did not lead us to Christ but that it was the disciplinarian until Christ came.” – Campbell

“The image here is not one of the Law gradually educating a child toward recognition of Christ, but of the Law forcing the child into patterns of behavior that were contrary to his nagture, and thus demonstrated again and again the reality of sin (4.1). What the Law does then is constantly remind the sinner that he is “a prisoner of sin.” – Richards

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Since Christ has come and the era of faith has begun – or, as Paul says in Romans, since we have been transferred from the realm of sin and death to the realm of Spirit and life – we are no longer in need of a guard. We have cast off the cloak of childhood and donned the clothes of maturity (the Roman rite of passage may have been in Paul’s mind). We are not under the law but certainly the law, being an expression of God’s character, remains true and valuable for us as believers. Forensically the law is fulfilled in us by virtue of our union with Christ; practically, the law is being fulfilled in us as we are conformed to the image of Christ.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “What on earth does this have to do with Jonathan and Phil’s conversation?” I was wondering the same myself – oh, it’s this: Phil is right. The true statements and conditions of the law may not be applicable at every point, but the principle remains true – or, more accurately, the principle remains truth. Even the sabbath has applications – i.e., truth – for us, as even a cursory reading of the Book of Hebrews makes clear.

Phil is concerned about Jonathan’s possible slide down a slippery slope of Bible veracity and integrity. Given the culture in which we live, this is a valid concern and a loving response to Jonathan. As my long explanation above hopefully demonstrated, things can be reconciled and explained but it takes work to do so. Phil, I think, has done such work and he is hopeful that Jonathan will do the same.

Hi, my name is Mike and I’m a blogaholic.”

(Altogether now) – “Hi, Mike!”

I did something over the weekend I’ve needed to do for a long time: I pared my list of blogs to visit. Yes, I recognize that this is considered a sign of backsliding by some (Baptists), loss of blogging by others (Arminians), and proof that I never really was a blogger to begin with (Reformed RSDEPers – that just doesn’t roll off the tongue like TULIP, does it?). But it was necessary.

I was spending far too much time in two activities: writing posts for a small but appreciative (usually) audience; cruising and reading the blogs of almost every believer who’s ever had at least one good post. So I cut it down, from maybe 20-25 regularly frequented blogs + 25-30 occasionally read blogs to a mere 10. And, as far as posting on my own blog goes, I’ve decided not to come up with posts or react to what else is being said unless the Muses truly come upon me. (Can I refer to “Muses” and still be a Christian?)

I know the visits to Eternal Perspectives will decrease even more than they already have (I average what now? 30 or so a day?) but so what? It’s not like there’s going to be a huge hole left in cyberspace – which, come to think of it, is really nothing more than a hole anyway. I’d rather read the 10 blogs I’ve settled on and maybe make a comment from time to time. Or send an email for an even more surreptitious influence. And wait for the Muses.

I must admit, though, that I’ve been more than a little discouraged by what seems to generate traffic. If I were to engage in some select sycophancy or narcissistic ranting, I’m sure I could improve my numbers. Or if I were to intentionally become controversial, adversarial, and unorthodox – in pretense, of course – my numbers would likely jump. Being a suck-up or a whipping boy = big numbers most of the time. If you’ve been around the BoG for awhile, you know who’s who.

What discourages me more, however, are the posts that don’t generate traffic or comments: the ones that are about books of the Bible (like the series I did on Jonah) or theological matters (such as the attributes of God). Those, I suppose, just result in yawns and quick clicks to other, more temporal posts. I’ve never been much for “what’s happening now.” There seems to be a ubiquitous disdain or disinterest in exegesis, exposition, or theology – not that I’ve done a whole lot of that. The lack of interest discourages me.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather read someone’s ideas about the Book of Romans than about the nascent church and its afterbirth. I’m a Bible or theological nerd, I guess.

For those of you who care about such things, I have kept my links to all the good blogs out there so don’t be concerned about your TTLB numbers dropping by a total of 1. I’ll visit from time to time when something of interest grabs me – I still scan the BoG several times a week.

So that’s where I am: trying to get the blogging monkey off my back and to return to some semblance of a real, personal, tactile life. Oh, wait: I’ve never had that kind of life anyway! Well, to get back to whatever.

Thanks for stopping by.

If I am really seeing what I think I am seeing, it’s a good thing – to a point.

I think I am seeing a change in the “order of high priests” in the Christian subculture, a change that is moving us away from an order whose ideas and promises have been tried and found lacking. The hope that was offerred by this well-intentioned order of incumbent priests has been exhausted after only a few decades of leading us down a path of “specialized” understanding of faith.

The earlier order of high priests consisted of psychologists and counselors (like myself) who held out the promise of a new level of spiritual maturity, dynamic ministry, and marital bliss based loosely upon the Word of God- but heavily influenced by the theoretical constructs of secular psychology. Following the authoritative voices and charismatic personalities of psychologists such as Narramore (Clyde, then Bruce), Dobson, Crabb, Adams, Collins, and others, the Christian community became enamored with psychological fads such as finding one’s inner child, constructing boundaries, becoming assertive, and casting off the shackles of codependence.

Q: How many codependents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. The codependents simply detach in love and watch the light bulb screw itself.”

Without question, a lot of good came from the psychological priesthood and this should not be construed as an attack on any of the aforementioned individuals who have sought to triage a bruised reed or re-ignite a smoldering wick. These psychologists – with eyes trained to see – began to comprehend and formulate passages and teachings in the Scripture a little differently than the pedestrian Levites, i.e., those trained theologically but without the “benefit” of in-depth instruction in art of therapy and personality development. (more…)

Those of you who have read my “testimony” may have noticed that I described myself theologically as holding to “unlimited atonement (not universalism).” If you were to go there today, you would observe that my description has changed: I now regard myself – in fact, always have believed this, only in different terms – as one who believes in “Definite Atonement (limited in application, not extent).”

I came to this realization over the weekend while studying Rom 8:28-30 and listening to a sermon/lecture by S. Lewis Johnson on the subject. He observed that everyone – except for those who believe in universalism – believes in limited atonement. So-called Calvinists regard the atonement as limited by design while followers of Arminius (but not Arminius himself) believe the atonement is limited by its efficacy. Calvinists, while believing that the atonement is not limited in extent, state that it is limited in intent; this is God’s view on the matter. Arminians, however, believe that it is limited because man is able to thwart the ideal will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:3-4) and thus not all are saved; this is man’s view of it.
(more…)

Warning:

Having a lot of Scripture stored away in your brain can be a dangerous thing.

I have been reading, listening to, discussing, or reflecting upon verses and passages from the Bible almost daily for more than thirty years (I might have missed a few days if I was amnesic for a brief period, but I don’t remember). I have never been one to intentionally memorize Scripture (except when required during seminary) but, not surprisingly, I still have a pretty good storehouse of God’s words sprinkled throughout the four-pound, gelatinous grey mass that masquerades as my brain.

This is a very good thing at times: I am convinced that, in certain situations, the Holy Spirit has brought a verse or passage to mind and provided me with wisdom. I don’t consciously try to remember things at such times but, like a tap on the shoulder and a whisper from a faithful friend, the words just seem to arrive unannounced. They are sometimes unwelcomed at first but eventually appreciated; they are always unexpected.

The danger arises from the fact that it is not only the Holy Spirit who accesses verses and brings them to mind. Sometimes – and especially when I have a headache and am mildly homicidal as a result – verses or truths pop into my head like unsheathed daggers, ready to inflict pain and suffering on whoever might be so brash as to speak to me on such days. It is my flesh, I’m convinced, persuading my redeemed spirit to take righteousness, justice, and vengeance into my own hands (if typing) or upon my own lips (if speaking) and thereby extract a pound of flesh.

(more…)

Doug Groothuis, professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary, has a wonderful and timely post at his new blog, The Constructive Curmudgeon. The post, Book Review of “On Bullshit” by Henry Frankfurt, should be required reading for all bloggers, but especially Christians.

Groothuis’ blog is one you’ll want to frequent regularly. Link to it and bookmark it. He’s the real deal.

Tim, in his post “Why Doesn’t God Choose Everybody?”, gives a reasonable and sound answer to an inquirer’s question. The problem as posed is basically expressing a need to understand how a good God can allow anyone to go to hell when (obviously) it is within His power to prevent it.

As the good Reformed theologian that he is, Tim leans heavily on election and God’s sovereignty to provide his response. He admits that some things about God and His ways are beyond our comprehension – and he is surely right about that – and quotes Rom 9:18-19 in support of his reply to the question:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’”

The sole concept that I would add to Tim’s already-sufficient response grows out of a couple of statements he makes as well as a passage from the same chapter of Romans. Tim writes,

As mere created beings we have no right to question His sovereign decrees . . . As Wayne Grudem says in his Systematic Theology, ‘If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair.’”

The passage is Rom 9:22-24, in which Paul asks and answers his own question:

(more…)

The struggle between the Spirit and the flesh is especially hard today.

The news out of London this morning (here in the States) was distressing and disturbing, dredging up solemn memories of airplanes crashing into buildings. Today: bombs in subways and on buses. Civilians killed. People with mortgages, dreams and fears; people in love, late for work, looking for a bite to eat. Men, women, and children whisked into eternity and the presence of God in an instant.

People with no knowledge of God, armed with blind zeal and explosives, self-righteously murder civilians. Cold-blooded killers who think they are heroes, lacking the courage to engage in battle like men, lacking the decency to at least blow themselves up and end their meaningless lives. They take credit for killing image-bearers, glorying in their insanity. Hell awaits them.

My flesh is stirred by what I watch, read, and hear about these non-thinking, bottom-feeding killers. They are psychopaths, clearly: they love nothing and no one. I want to hate them; I want to hunt them down and kill them. Whatever fear I might have felt at one time – a buried feeling emanating from 9-11 – has given way to hatred. And the hatred feels good, and I want to indulge in it. It feels strong.

But then the Holy Spirit brings something to mind, a verse:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” – Eph 6:12, NASB

At times like these I don’t want to remember that the terrorists are servants of Satan. They worship demons, follow doctrines of demons, and are wholly slaves of sin. They walk in darkness and are dead in trespasses and sin. Ultimately, they are not the enemy. They serve the enemy – willingly – but they are blind to the truth. Like the pagans of the Old Testament, they serve a god of war, violence, blood, and power. There is no peace for them. They have no answers; they serve a lie.

I don’t want to remember any of that on a day like today because I want someone or something tangible as a focal point for my anger. I don’t want to grieve or be sad – it feels too weak. I want justice – no, I want vengeance. I want to see the people that caused suffering be caused to suffer.

But vengeance doesn’t belong to me. And I have blood on my hands, too: even though these terrorists caused the death of innocent people, I caused the death of the only truly Innocent One in the history of the world. I caused a death and deserved death, but the One whose death I caused chose to die for me. He should never have died; I should. But I won’t: I’ve received mercy; I’ve received grace. He died for my sins – all of them, including my hatred of terrorists.

As a forgiven murderer of the Son of God, I’m now called upon to forgive others who have murdered. My flesh doesn’t want to, but my regenerated spirit knows I need to; the Holy Spirit promises to do it if I’ll let Him. Somehow I will; maybe I have.

But the battle between the flesh and the Spirit is hard, especially on a day like today.

The Fourth of July is certainly a great date in the history of the United States of America. It is the day we commemorate the birth of our country, recalling our declaration of freedom from the British empire and remembering the many resulting freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the land. Though some freedoms were not originally extended to all (e.g., women) and no freedoms granted to many (slaves), the country has grown to be one of the freest nations in the history of the world.

One of the freedoms that Christians enjoy is the freedom to practice our faith freely without (so far) any significant persecution. In many communities there are at least as many churches as bars, a fact that is at once encouraging and discouraging. Our theologies are proclaimed proudly on T-shirts and bumper stickers (which brings to mind Nixon’s famous statement that television news is to journalism what bumper stickers are to philosophy).

The greatest freedoms for Christians, however, are not found in the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, as wonderful as those documents might be. The greatest freedoms are found in a collection of documents and writings (which certainly influenced the Declaration and Consitution) that we call the Bible – the Holy Bible.

One of the many subthemes in the Book of Romans has to do with those freedoms: chapter 6 explains Christians’ freedom from sin (and our ensuing slavery to obedience) while chapter 7 demonstrates our freedom from the Law. As Christians, we are free from sin and the Law because of our position: we are in Christ, united with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Being “in Christ” is a doctrinal truth found throughout the New Testament and one that makes all aspects of our Christian experience possible, from salvation to sanctification to glorification. Our union with Christ makes possible our freedom from sin, as Paul argues in Rom 6:1-11; our union with His death also makes possible our participation in a new covenant, having been freed from the burden of keeping the Law (Rom 7:1-6).

There is another freedom taught in the Book of Romans, one of which we are surely aware but perhaps one that we have not reflected upon sufficiently. It is found in the opening verse of chapter 8:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1, NASB).

As many of you know, the order of the words in Greek was the means whereby the author proclaimed the emphasis or significance of a word and sentence. Lacking the laziness of our writing tools today, ancient authors didn’t employ underlines, italics, or boldface fonts (they did use capital letters – but everything was capitalized). Rom 8:1 begins not with “there” or “therefore” but with the vital little word “no.” If Paul had used Microsoft Word, the verse might have looked like this:

There is therefore now NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s emphasis is on the word “no” and thereby strongly rules out the possibility of condemnation for the believer. What is the basis of that impossibility? It is found in the last three words of the verse: “in Christ Jesus.” As always, the removal of the Christian from any and all threats of condemnation is a result of union with Christ.

But how secure are we? Is it not conceivable, as most Christians believe, to somehow forfeit that protection and thus return to the place of being subject to condemnation? Can we be confident? The answer to these important questions – once again – is found in our union with Christ.

As Paul makes clear in his letter to the Ephesians, all believers – that is, everyone who has the Spirit of God and belongs to Him (Rom 8:9) – are sealed “in Him” by the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13). Our security is as strong as the seal of God; it is as strong as are the promises of God.

Because the believer is in Christ Jesus, it is as impossible for him or her to be condemned as it would be for Jesus Christ to be condemned. And we know that God has accepted Jesus Christ because He was resurrected from the dead, assuring not only His freedom from condemnation but freedom for all those who have trusted in Him for their salvation. Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified: Paul uses the past tense for all those verbs because our freedom from condemnation is established by Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

The believer is as safe as Jesus Christ: free from sin, free from the Law, free from condemnation. There is no chance or possibility of condemnation for the believer because there is no situation or circumstance wherein Jesus Christ would be condemned by the Father. Whenever we have doubts, we need remember but two things: we are in Christ Jesus and we are as secure as He is.

Freedom from condemnation is one of Christians’ greatest freedoms, if not the greatest. “No condemnation is there, therefore, for those who are in Christ Jesus.” We are in the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, the Creator and Sustainer of all that is. We are free.