Bosphorus Bridge, Turkey connecting Europe to Asia (trekearth.com)
March 30, 2011
My Methodology
This post will be somewhat speculative and definitely non-exhaustive. I am not claiming these are all the influences leading to non-Biblical Christianity with some individuals and movements. These are reasons that come to mind from my studies and my last two degrees were in a secular context in departments where certain persons were moderate and even very liberal and I have had to consider these issues. As well, Westminster Seminary of Pennsylvania recently put on a related conference in Vancouver and so I continue to ponder on these issues.
I am not what I would consider a fundamentalist. I do reason that the Scripture is revelation from God that God guided certain persons to write. The original autographs do not exist, as far it is known, and the copies do have scribal errors, but the essential theology, philosophy and worldview of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament from academic appearances have been maintained. I hold to the inerrant word of God. I favour with the use of an English reading (in my case), seeking the original languages and the use of commentaries and other texts, finding the contextual meaning of Scripture and therefore finding proper theology. I do acknowledge the importance of methodology and background studies in academics, including in religious/philosophical studies. The Bible it is not all written in plain literal language and can be figurative literal.
Therefore, I reason the Bible is not mythology or fiction.
I am not a liberal, because of my stance on the Scripture and my resulting theology. I do see all truth as God's truth and the study of secular philosophy and in particular philosophy of religion can assist in the overall pursuit of knowledge and truth found via Biblical Studies and theology.
I would classify myself as moderate conservative, largely due to my academic approach.
I do not classify those who claim the Biblical God and triune God of the New Testament, that do not share my Reformed views, for example, or other secondary views I hold to, as those that have abandoned Biblical Christianity, and as sell-outs. In this article I am referencing persons and movements that seek to radically modify Christian faith and philosophy in non-Biblical ways.
It should be noted that extreme forms of fundamentalism that fail to exegete Scripture reasonably and properly leading to proper theology, also can lead to a corruption and even abandonment of Biblical Christianity, just as can radical liberal approaches.
Recent related post:
Kant (1724-1804)
The Enlightenment
From my 2009 post on Enlightenment (edited): 'Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355). So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men.
David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgment. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180).
David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).
Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that humanity has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.
Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.'
Postmodernism
From my PhD:
'Modernity was the dominant worldview heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 79-80). Veith writes that in the late twentieth century these views have been replaced by post-modernism, which has less emphasis on absolute truth. Veith (1994: 19). This is not to state that post-modernism completely sets aside the concept of truth, but post-modern philosophies are often less dogmatic in approach than ones from the modern era.'
Blackburn explains that philosophically postmodernism implies a mistrust in the views of modernity. Blackburn (1996: 294). Post-structuralists deny fixed meanings or correspondences between language and reality and fixed objective truth and fact. Blackburn (1996: 295). Truth is not so much objective, but there can be more or less accuracy. Blackburn (1996: 295).
There is a fixed meaning between the language of the text and reality. There is a claim of truth and fact.
Therefore, a postmodern approach to Scripture is in error as it fails to reasonably accept the objective claims made within.
The permanent strand of philosophy that ties knowledge to experience, as in sensory consciousness and in what can be observed as true by the use of the senses. Blackburn (1996: 119). Knowledge outside of this approach is denied and there is no such thing as a priori knowledge or intuitive knowledge that can be found by the use of reason. Blackburn (1996: 119).
A problem with this Blackburn states is explaining how thought does not derive from experience but appears to allow persons to categorize experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). He also noted that mathematics, and the logical appear to have no basis in experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). In can be deduced that there are mathematical and logical truths that exist outside of empirical experience.
Therefore, there would also be philosophical and theological truths that exist outside of empirical experiences.
Further:
Empirical experiences allow the human being to understand in thought mathematics, logic, philosophy and theology.
To use empiricism in Religious Studies at the expense of other forms of thought such as rationalism which uses unaided reason in order to gain knowledge, Blackburn (1996: 318) in the discipline of philosophy/philosophy of religion, and theology which trusts and depends in Biblical supernatural revelation, is to overlook certain means of finding truth.
Therefore, empiricism is a valid and reasonable form of philosophy and very necessary in science, but is limited and should not be the only worldview considered in the pursuit of truth.
A Philosophy of God's Love over God's Justice
No question God's love for humanity is seen in the New Testament by Christ's atoning work (Mark 10: 45, Hebrews 9, 10) including justification (Romans 1-3, Galatians 2) and sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15) and his resurrection (John 20, 21, 1 Corinthians 15) for humanity as he elects those in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8). It is also demonstrated in the Hebrew Bible with various covenants.
In my mind often certain conservatives and fundamentalists emphasize their particular secondary doctrines and related cultural beliefs so strongly that they do not sufficiently love others, this love should be a result of loving God fully (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10). In the name of justice it appears they reason others can be shunned or not fully respected because others outside of these views are not following God properly.
Some liberals, especially the more radical ones, often seem to at times wish to include so many within the Church that they are willing to overlook claims made in the Scripture that would exclude others, at least from membership, such as the Ten Commandment and other morality claims and commands. God's love is emphasized at the expense of justice. Christians should love their neighbour (Matthew 22, Mark 12), and Christians are to love one another (John 13). Others of different non-Biblical views should always be loved. But, there are objective standards given in Scripture and final judgment for those outside of Christ (Revelation 20) and in Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 10).
Supporting persons and churches claiming to be Christian which overemphasize the love of God at the expense of justice are really setting certain many persons up for a disappointing final review from God, whether the persons being judged are in or outside of Christ, although obviously it is much better to be in Christ.
Therefore, I think this philosophy is theologically misguided error which places one aspect of God above the other.
Further: It is not loving in a proper sense.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford, University, Press.
BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.
Las Vegas, Nevada strip (Ron Niebrugge)
Bristol, England (trekearth.com)
Vancouver, BC (trekearth.com)
BA, MTS, MPhil, PhD (Order on wall, PhD, up BA, down MTS, MPhil)
My wall completed after my PhD graduation party.
fortunately, a life of faith is not ultimately a matter of cognition, but of being in relation with God.
ReplyDeleteHonor the mind, but she makes a cruel goddess, my brother :-)
Aloha to you
from Honolulu!
Comfort Spiral
><}}(°>
><}}(°>
'fortunately, a life of faith is not ultimately a matter of cognition, but of being in relation with God.
ReplyDeleteHonor the mind, but she makes a cruel goddess, my brother :-)'
Hello Cloudia, thanks once again.
I do need a reasonable faith in order to have a relationship with God, the actual God, and not simply a God of human creation.
The Scripture understood in proper context, is a vital aspect in how this occurs.
Further, I do reason there are moderate liberal Christians, my post is dealing with extremes.
"...extreme forms of fundamentalism that fail to exegete Scripture reasonably and properly leading to proper theology,..."
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, Russ. I have had to get over that sort of fundamentalism in my past. Lord help us to be honest exegetes, regardless of any perceived cost for doing so. Take care...
When I became a Christian as a child I had to deal with fundamentalist issues as well. It was a process.
ReplyDeleteFortunately over time with God's guidance in prayer and study I have been able to largely separate Biblical essentials from fundamentalism with theological and cultural issues.
Cheers, Greg!
OK, my 2nd attempt to post this:
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, and I think much of those philosophies have influenced both Christians and non-Christians today.
In general, I tend to take a more general and simplistic view. And I suspect that my definition of "fundamentalists" or "fundamentalism" may differ from yours, Russ.
I attended Bob Jones University, which I consider the most fundamentalist university in the U.S. To me, 'fundamentalists' have their doctrine basically correct (and I include Calvinists in this group), and are strong on truth, but IMO, they tend to be very legalistic, as well as judgmental towards others.
The second group that I would categorize is Charismatics, which, IMO, includes Pentecostals. They often tend to be strong on love, but not only are they weak on truth, they are overflowing in false doctrines and even heresies.
The third group that I would mention are liberals, which, again IMO, includes both Christians and non-Christians. In my view, these are people who tend not to believe part of, or even any of, the Bible. This group is often for abortion, see nothing wrong with homosexuality, etc. Some churches that I would place in this category are fairly loving, but others are not only spiritually dead, but their members seem like walking zombies. Also, a Lutheran seminary that I visited years ago would fit into this category, as they taught human philosophy and attacked the Bible and denied the miracles mentioned in the Bible.
As was mentioned in C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters," Satan tends to push people to extremes. In my experience, it seems that those churches who are strong on truth tend to be weak on love, and tend to be legalistic. And those churches who are strong on love often tend to be weak on truth, and are often not very discerning.
Anyway, that's my two cents' worth.
'OK, my 2nd attempt to post this:
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, and I think much of those philosophies have influenced both Christians and non-Christians today.'
Blogger, Blogger, Blogger, Blogger. I completed this post with Firefox which is a rarity for me. As soon as I went back into Internet Explorer to make some changes it became somewhat messed up.
Thanks, Jeff. I think I am basically on a right track.
'In general, I tend to take a more general and simplistic view. And I suspect that my definition of "fundamentalists" or "fundamentalism" may differ from yours, Russ.'
I am sure the academic definition would vary. I am separating myself from certain things associated with fundamentalism. These include an overall overly literalistic interpretation of Scripture, a lack of academic approach to Scripture, and some of the cultural aspects, such as legalism.
'I attended Bob Jones University, which I consider the most fundamentalist university in the U.S. To me, 'fundamentalists' have their doctrine basically correct (and I include Calvinists in this group), and are strong on truth, but IMO, they tend to be very legalistic, as well as judgmental towards others.'
Sorry, I always think of Jim Jones University. I think many fundamentalists are basically orthodox as are many moderate liberals.
'The second group that I would categorize is Charismatics, which, IMO, includes Pentecostals. They often tend to be strong on love, but not only are they weak on truth, they are overflowing in false doctrines and even heresies.'
I get your point. Interestingly, in the UK my advisors were charismatics and two of three from Wales I reason would be moderate liberals, at least on some points, but still basically orthodox.
'The third group that I would mention are liberals, which, again IMO, includes both Christians and non-Christians. In my view, these are people who tend not to believe part of, or even any of, the Bible. This group is often for abortion, see nothing wrong with homosexuality, etc. Some churches that I would place in this category are fairly loving, but others are not only spiritually dead, but their members seem like walking zombies. Also, a Lutheran seminary that I visited years ago would fit into this category, as they taught human philosophy and attacked the Bible and denied the miracles mentioned in the Bible.'
Yes.
However, my friend 'Zombie' is not here to defend himself.;)
'In my experience, it seems that those churches who are strong on truth tend to be weak on love, and tend to be legalistic. And those churches who are strong on love often tend to be weak on truth, and are often not very discerning.'
As I alluded to.
Thanks, Mr. Jenkins.
As Jeff alludes to, a big problem in Christianity is the schisms between groups of Christians - denominations and sub-denominations - and the seeming lack of desire of people to look outside their group and try to reach a common understanding with others, and learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteIf fundamentalism is simply a description of someone with their hands over their ears, refusing to think differently, then there are many so-called liberals who are "fundamentalists".
Liberal fundamentalism basically cost me my first PhD appointment at Manchester as I was told that if I did not think secular and stop thinking God created and managed the world, in light the of the present problem of evil, I would not pass.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Saint Chucklins
Well, once again, I get the error, "We're sorry, but we were unable to complete your request."
ReplyDeletechucky said...
As Jeff alludes to, a big problem in Christianity is the schisms between groups of Christians - denominations and sub-denominations - and the seeming lack of desire of people to look outside their group and try to reach a common understanding with others, and learn from each other.
Agreed! Far too often, white churches don't mix with black churches. Pastors and congregations can't see past the four walls of their own local church, and they often have very little interest in bringing the gospel outside the four walls of those churches. They are mainly only interested in whatever 'programs' are being offered at their local church, and, if someone is to be saved, then that person needs to come to their church to hear the gospel, rather than that local church going out into the world to bring the gospel to the lost. Also, you may have 2 or even 3 churches on a single block, but they will usually have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Now, my friend who used to live in the northern U.S. tells me that where he used to live, it was not that way, but that churches would often get together, even if they were of different denominations. But I have not personally seen that, or at least have seen it only rarely, outside of para-church organizations.
This is my "American" opinion, at least.
Wikipedia states that "Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed." I think I would agree with this broad definition. It also states that "The founders reacted against liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ." I would agree with this description as well.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, it also states that "The term "fundamentalist" is controversial into the 21st century; it is often used to attack or ridicule adherents (label of "fundy"), although it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative while to others it has become a banner of pride. Such Christians prefer to use the term fundamental as opposed to fundamentalist (e.g., Independent Fundamental Baptist and Independent Fundamental Churches of America). This term is sometimes confused with Christian legalism."
LOL! As stated earlier, many often tend to be legalistic, so it's no wonder that it is "sometimes confused with Christian legalism!"
Now here is one person (John Hagee) that some call a "fundamentalist," whom I would completely disagree with on this issue:
ReplyDeleteSan Antonio fundamentalist battles anti-Semitism
From the article:
"He also believes that Jews can come to God without going through Jesus Christ."
"I'm not trying to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith," he said."
"In fact, trying to convert Jews is a "waste of time," he said. "The Jewish person who has his roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity. There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already) have a faith structure."
Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity, he says.
"The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses," Hagee said. "I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.
"The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation. And God has not," said Hagee, giving his interpretation of Romans 11:25. "Paul abandoned the idea (of Jews knowing Christ). In the book of Romans, he said, `I am now going to go to the Gentiles from this time forward.' Judaism doesn't need Christianity to explain its existence. But Christianity has to have Judaism to explain its existence."
"Opponents say such a theory is a form of universalism, which means that all religions are equivalent. In the past, Christianity has stressed that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, for Jews as well as non-Jews."
'Also, you may have 2 or even 3 churches on a single block, but they will usually have absolutely nothing to do with each other.'
ReplyDeleteYes, and try to get some Reformed/Evangelical blog links.
Instead I have been trying Russia recently...;)
'It also states that "The founders reacted against liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ." I would agree with this description as well.'
ReplyDeleteI think a problem with that broad definition of fundamentalism is that it could be viewed as synonymous with evangelicalism. So, although it has its merits I prefer my narrow definition.
Cheers, Mr. Jenkins
Great photos!)
ReplyDeleteThank you.:)
ReplyDeleteJohn 14:6 does point out the exclusivity of Christ for salvation in the New Testament and post era. Romans 1-6 deals with this issue as does Hebrews with the concept of the New Covenant (Chapters 7-12).
ReplyDeleteGetting ready for the PhD grad party...
Cheers, Jeff.
Done, thank you once again.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately a lot of people eat up this stuff as being supposedly representative of right-wing American Christianity. I don't detect much Christian love coming from Westboro Baptist.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cardinal Chuckins.
ReplyDeleteWestboro Baptist Church names some human sins and then attempts to connect them to certain results.
This is very speculative from finite beings.
This is prone to personal and cultural biases.
This is from sinners themselves.
Therefore, a final type religious judgment (condemning if it occurs) should be left to the infinite God.
Also:
Christians should love their neighbour (Matthew 22, Mark 12), and Christians are to love one another (John 13).
I seriously question whether any serious love is shown by this church to outsiders.
I'm not sure which puts more of a black stain on Christianity: Westboro Baptist Church, televangelists, or things associated with the Catholic Church such as pedophile priests, the Crusades and the Inquisition. Satan is certainly at work trying to destroy churches and trying to mar the reputation of the name "Christian." At the same time, there are false religions deceiving people. And, in the case of Islam, killing millions. Example:
ReplyDeleteMuslim Countries Becoming Bolder in Persecuting Christians
Issue Date: September/October 2001
"Islam's hostility to Christians is beginning to get some attention from the media. The Associated Press reports that a German Christian relief agency was raided in early August by police from the Afghan Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Nearly 100 were arrested including 2 American, 4 German and 2 Australian aid workers. They were charged with preaching Christianity in this Muslim nation.
Bibles, videos, and records with Christian radio frequencies were confiscated as evidence. Also arrested were 16 Afghan workers and 64 young boys whom the police said were being taught Christianity. Officials said the boys would be re-educated in Islam and released later.
The fate of the others was not yet clear. In January this year, the Afghan government warned that conversion to Christianity was punishable by death. Given the harsh and sometimes fatal treatment of Christians in other Islamic countries, there is grave concern, particularly for the Afghan workers. Hopefully the world will be watching.
A little investigating on the internet turns up reports of Muslim persecution of Christians from many other countries dominated by Islam. In Indonesia, reports date back into last year of Muslim "holy war fighters" aided in some cases by government troops using sophisticated weaponry on a campaign to eradicate Christians from whole regions of the country.
In March, a report came out of Pakistan that young Christian girls were being kidnapped and raped by Muslims. One girl was kidnapped after sharing Christ with a schoolmate. Her parents were told that she had converted to Islam and wished to leave her Christian home.
Local police refused to investigate her parents' complaint and her whereabouts was not known. Another Pakistani Christian faces death by hanging for blasphemy against "the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (Mohammed)."
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteA Turkish Christian was arrested in February and charged with insulting Islam and Mohammed. Proselytism is not illegal in Turkey, but their criminal laws prohibit "insulting the books, prophets, or values of another religion." This makes it all but impossible to obey the great commission, so any soul-winning activity could be construed as violating the law.
An obscure war is going on in the southern Philippines where Muslims are using terror to try and establish a separate Islamic state. Christians and Roman Catholics are frequently kidnapped and some have been beheaded.
In Africa, several countries have become dominated by Islam and anyone who does not convert comes under extreme persecution, displacement or death.
Few Americans are aware that Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, is one of the most oppressive countries for Christians. There are no churches in the whole country. Foreign workers make up one-third of the population, many of whom are Christians.
For their entire stay, which may be years, they are forbidden to display any Christian symbols or Bibles, or even meet together publicly to worship and pray. Some have watched their personal Bibles put through a shredder when they entered the country.
In the past, foreign Christians caught practicing their faith have been deported. Recently there has been an increase of midnight raids with Christians dragged off to prison and computers, Bibles, books, tapes and family photos confiscated.
Much of this news is ignored by the rest of the world but Bible believers should be aware and pray for the fellow believers in the Muslim countries. Over one billion people are bound by this false religion. They need to be freed by the truth of the gospel.
We should study carefully the books that have been written on witnessing to Muslims. There are an estimated 5 million Muslims living in the U.S. Many have strong ties to their homelands. If we win one of them to Christ, we can influence family members both here and on the other side of the world."
'I'm not sure which puts more of a black stain on Christianity: Westboro Baptist Church, televangelists, or things associated with the Catholic Church such as pedophile priests, the Crusades and the Inquisition. Satan is certainly at work trying to destroy churches and trying to mar the reputation of the name "Christian."'
ReplyDeleteWell-stated philosophy, Mr. Jenkins.
'A Turkish Christian was arrested in February and charged with insulting Islam and Mohammed. Proselytism is not illegal in Turkey, but their criminal laws prohibit "insulting the books, prophets, or values of another religion." This makes it all but impossible to obey the great commission, so any soul-winning activity could be construed as violating the law.'
ReplyDeleteTurkey is part of NATO but not the EU although a candidate. If they ever want to be part of the EU they should have to liberalize laws concerning religion somewhat. I have read that is an issue.
'An obscure war is going on in the southern Philippines where Muslims are using terror to try and establish a separate Islamic state. Christians and Roman Catholics are frequently kidnapped and some have been beheaded.'
Horrible.
Tasering in BC has been discussed previously on my blogs. Now an 11 year old boy has been tasered by the RCMP.
ReplyDeleteMontreal Gazette/The Province
'B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, is launching her own investigation into why Prince George RCMP used a Taser on an 11-yearold boy who was the suspect in a stabbing at a group home.'
'"Police confirmed that a 37-yearold male had been allegedly stabbed by an 11-year-old male and the victim was enroute to hospital for medical care," said Butterworth-Carr.'
The Vancouver Sun
'B.C. Mounties fired a Taser at an 11-year-old boy who was suspected of stabbing a 37-year-old man on Thursday.'
'Attending officers received information that the boy had attacked the adult male, who was then en route to hospital. Police began a search for the boy and found him at a neighbouring property.'
My initial reaction is that even though the boy may have had a knife and stabbed someone I would have preferred the police not taser him. Instead, I would favour something like pepper spray or mace for example, be used which is less dangerous.
Yes, the police may not carry these, but the police should be ready to do deal with children and so perhaps should carry these items.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. School has been eating up almost all of my "free time", so I haven't been able to blogsurf for months (and hardly able to keep mine fresh).
I get what you are saying about overemphasizing one "attribute" of God over another (not your exact words, I know), and I agree; but I think that for the last 500+ years or so the church has been guilty of overemphasing God's attributes at the expense of His "love". The church tends to think of God's love simply as another attribute of God, though possibly the greatest attribute.
But when speaking of God's love, we are not speaking of an "attribute" but the actual essence or nature of God--He is love. Any "attribute" that we speak of (justice, faithfulness, power, etc.) must be understood in light of who God is in Himself, in His very being.
Now obviously we can rightly say, "God is just". But when we think of "just" or "justice", we understand these terms as character or action toward or against its opposite--unjust or injustice. But we can't attribue any sort of "unjust" or "injustice" to very being of God--God as He is in Himself. Before the creation of anything there was only God. So if we can think about God, His character/essence/nature apart from creation, would we think in terms of "justice" or "wrath" or whatever? I don't think so. But we can think of "love" because that is who God is in relation to Himself as Father, Son, Spirit.
I think we run into danger in our understanding of who God is and the purpose of God for creation when we fail to distinguish between the essence or nature of God as He is in Himself and His attributes. Too often our theology books define God according to His attributes rather than defining Him in accordance with who He is as Father, Son and Spirit in perichorectic unity.
Starting here will, IMO, give us a healthy understanding of God and His purpose in creation. And for this reason, I think the "emerging" movement (in general) is on the right track. I think God's love should be held above God's justice because I don't think we can rightly understand His justice apart from His nature--God's "love" bounds His "justice".
Just my opinion.
GGM
'Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. School has been eating up almost all of my "free time", so I haven't been able to blogsurf for months (and hardly able to keep mine fresh).'
Great Googled Man,
I did not Blog when I was doing course work.
'I get what you are saying about overemphasizing one "attribute" of God over another (not your exact words, I know), and I agree;
but I think that for the last 500+ years or so the church has been guilty of overemphasing God's attributes at the expense of His "love". The church tends to think of God's love simply as another attribute of God, though possibly the greatest attribute.'
Erickson, for example discusses God's classic attributes in Christian Theology (263-283) and then goes onto God's moral attributes/his character which includes God's love on page 292. Erickson a Reformed Baptist states that there is no tension between the love and justice of God and that they worked together in dealing with God's plan for humanity. God's justice requires that there be payment for sin and God's love requires humanity to be restored to God. 298.
'But when speaking of God's love, we are not speaking of an "attribute" but the actual essence or nature of God--He is love. Any "attribute" that we speak of (justice, faithfulness, power, etc.) must be understood in light of who God is in Himself, in His very being.'
Hmm, love is an attribute. But it could be said God is love, and it could be said God is justice.
'Now obviously we can rightly say, "God is just". But when we think of "just" or "justice", we understand these terms as character or action toward or against its opposite--unjust or injustice. But we can't attribue any sort of "unjust" or "injustice" to very being of God--God as He is in Himself. Before the creation of anything there was only God. So if we can think about God, His character/essence/nature apart from creation, would we think in terms of "justice" or "wrath" or whatever? I don't think so. But we can think of "love" because that is who God is in relation to Himself as Father, Son, Spirit.'
'I think we run into danger in our understanding of who God is and the purpose of God for creation when we fail to distinguish between the essence or nature of God as He is in Himself and His attributes. Too often our theology books define God according to His attributes rather than defining Him in accordance with who He is as Father, Son and Spirit in perichorectic unity.'
'Starting here will, IMO, give us a healthy understanding of God and His purpose in creation. And for this reason, I think the "emerging" movement (in general) is on the right track. I think God's love should be held above God's justice because I don't think we can rightly understand His justice apart from His nature--God's "love" bounds His "justice".
Just my opinion.
GGM'
I side with Erickson. Thanks my friend.
Hello Russ,
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.'
Very good point and well stated.. Amen!
Supporting persons and churches claiming to be Christian which overemphasize the love of God at the expense of justice are really setting certain many persons up for a disappointing final review from God, whether the persons being judged are in or outside of Christ, although obviously it is much better to be in Christ.
Therefore, I think this philosophy is theologically misguided error which places one aspect of God above the other.
Further: It is not loving in a proper sense.
Another very good point made, and we live in such a time taht this is happening.. Amen Russ!
Blessings to you
Tammy :)
Thank you, Tammy.
ReplyDeleteBlessings this weekend to you and family.
Russ
Dr. Kingpin;)
In your article you mention that a person has difficulty being totally objective in their reasoning abilities and that the subjective is always present. What would be an example?
ReplyDelete-Curious-
Airplane accident victim talks about returning from the edge of hell.
ReplyDeleteBaptist hellfaahr pastah gets a lot of face time in this History Channel doc on hell.
ReplyDeleteA much better one (based on watching the first 2 parts) can be seen here.
'In your article you mention that a person has difficulty being totally objective in their reasoning abilities and that the subjective is always present. What would be an example?
ReplyDelete-Curious-'
A person is never completely objective.
Thank you.
'Airplane accident victim talks about returning from the edge of hell.'
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting 'hell' story to ponder on.
'Baptist hellfaahr pastah gets a lot of face time in this History Channel doc on hell.'
'A much better one (based on watching the first 2 parts) can be seen here.'
I have written on this topic as can be seen via a search on thekingpin68 and satire and theology.
I found it a bit humourous on the first clip how this pastor was cut-off.
Thanks, Uncle Chucklins.