Darkness: But not black and white

To continue with the theological concept of darkness from last entry and one in April.

June 3

I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).

σκότος

Page 88

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758). From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

June 5, 2019

From Courson's commentary in regards to John 3: 19:

Quote:

'Why don't people come to the light? It is not because they don't believe the gospel intellectually or because they struggle with it philosophically.' (460).

Quote:

'...the one and only reason people don't come to the light is because they prefer darkness.' (460).

I do not completely agree with this analysis. I reason:

Some unbelievers accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically...to a degree.

Common sense and my United Kingdom theses work tells me there are plenty of held to academic premises opposed to the Gospel, embraced by those outside of the Kingdom of God. Certainly many unbelievers do not accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically and reject the Christian worldview and Christian theology.

As I noted in the previous entry, the corrupted, fallen human nature leads to an embracing of human darkness. This is the primary human reason leading to disbelief in the Gospel. But, this does not prohibit premises which can be either true or false, to degrees, which the unbeliever, while in darkness, holds to as objections to Christianity and support for unbelief.

I like aspects of Courson's comments here, but just find them too theologically black and white.

For example:

A relative states (paraphrased) that there are too many radical, crazy, American Christians, as support for his/her unbelief.

Certainly many Christians from Canada, the United States and worldwide, believe that some American Christians are negatively radical.

(Negative on both on the left and right)

The relative in unbelief, in darkness, may actually hold to a reasonable premise against Christianity, a cumulative reason for disbelief (in his/her own mind). At the same time, I reason a conclusion that Christianity and the Gospel are false is wrong. Those in the Church, in the light, that can also hold to the premise mentioned, can correctly hold to a negative premise in regard to Christianity, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Darkness and lack of belief

Today

I recently discussed this topic on April 22

To continue with the theological concept of darkness.

I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).

σκότος

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758).



From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

New American Standard Bible

Romans 5:10 10

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved [a]by His life.

Footnotes: [a] Romans 5:10

Colossians 1: 21-24 21

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Human beings as enemies of God and being alienated from God with a hostile mind (s), in my opinion cancels out theology/philosophy of person's simply responding to the offer of salavtion using libertarian free will (incompatibilism).

In contrast, God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates the persons (Titus 3, or same makes born again John 3) applying the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to those persons that simultaneously embrace, as secondary cause, with limited free will, what God has caused, choosing them (Ephesians 1-2) (compatibilism). This is neither libertarian free will, nor divine force of coercion.

From my Reformed perspective, the goodness and pure heart (I would state purified heart) that welcomes the light is the heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Theologically, I reason a human spirit, mind and heart that embraces darkness, outside of divine regeneration, is a reason for lack of belief.

Does this cancel out other possible, reasonable, premises for lack of belief in Christian faith and philosophy?

I do not think so. This explains, biblically, the human spiritual condition, but there can be various human held premises and conclusions that render disbelief. I am not stating that every premise for lack of belief is intellectually and philosophically wrong; rather I am acknowledging the biblical, spiritual condition which via corrupted, fallen human nature, desires and limited free will, renders premises, whether true or false, in such a way to stay in unbelief.

This opposed to holding to certain premises, true or false, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Homological, Autological, Heterological

Wells Cathedral, postcard scan 1997: Green grass.

Some new terms for me from philosopher, Blackburn.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cited

Homological

'Word that applies to itself. See autological, Grelling's paradox.' (177).

Autological

Cited

'A word that applies to itself: 'short' is a short word, 'English' is an English word. (30).

Grelling's Paradox would feature the idea that although 'short' is a short word, 'long' is not a long word.(162). The 'long' example is an example of the heterological. A word that does not apply to itself. (172).  Blackburn explains that there is a question whether or not 'heterological' is actually a word that does not apply to itself as heterological. (163). Quote: 'If it is it is not, and is not if it is'. (163). A semantic paradox. (163).

Both are true...

To me, paradoxes present a case for careful reasoning in context, with the presentation of premises and conclusions.

Is green a green word? No, is that case it is heterological.

Is green a green word? Yes, is that case it is homological.

The Church & Politics (Sermon and comments)

Enjoy it while it lasts...

September 30 2012

Sermon link from Pastor Michael Phillips

I will preface by stating that I have much overall agreement with Pastor Michael Phillips' worldview and theology. I am therefore not surprised to be in basic agreement with his views on the Church and politics.

It should be noted that I live in Canada and not the United States of America. There is less drastic left versus right, politically, present here in Canada, in my humble opinion.

Citations in Italics

Who is on the Lord's Side? Politics and Gospel

In regard to different voting preference...

Cited

THREE BAD OPTIONS 

The easiest way to explain the split vote is also the worst way: The professed Christians who voted for the wrong man did it because they were not true Christians. They said they were, but they were not, because if they had been, they would have voted for the other man, the man you did. 

A second option is slightly better than the first: The Christians who voted for the wrong man were real believers, but in casting the vote they did, they put their own wishes above God's will. 

A third way of seeing it is quite a bit better than the first two: The Christians who voted for the wrong man did not do it on purpose, but because they misread their Bibles or mistook what they heard on the radio for the leading of the Spirit. Vladimir Lenin called such people Useful Idiots, good people who can be fooled into doing bad things.
---

I reason there are useful idiots within Christianity as well. People are deceived because they are not properly being directed by the Holy Spirit, the scripture and the Church to hold to reasonable and true views and theology. May we prayerfully be better with God's help by grace through faith.

Cited

AN ASSESSMENT 

What do we make of these options? 

I think there's some truth in all of them. Not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' is a true disciple, and false disciples in life are likely to be false disciples in the voting booth.

It is also true that real disciples of Christ are not always good disciples. We all fail to follow Jesus in some parts of life, and, for some, it's the political part. 

When it comes to the foolish and wrong things we do, we can never rule out ignorance and stupidity. We cast stupid and uninformed votes because we're stupid and uninformed! 

A BETTER OPTION 

While there is truth in all these options, they don't capture all the truth. There is another truth in the mix, and it's one we don't like to think about. It makes us uneasy because it seems to cast doubt on the clarity and sufficiency of God Word. 

I'll put it to you as bluntly as I can: Most of what we want to know about politics is not in the Bible directly, and it cannot be justly inferred from the Bible! 

What do you want to know about politics? I want to know who to vote for, what party to join, what causes to support or oppose, and how to set my priorities. 

On all these topics, the Bible says nothing. I can read it till my eyes fall out, and I won't find the answers I'm looking for. Because they're not there.
---

Through my own studies, having come to similar conclusions, I would suppose there is some significant freedom of conscience for the Christian voter.

What the bible says about politics?

Cited

Firstly, the Bible teaches civil government is appointed by God, Romans 13:1.

Secondly, the Bible teaches us to submit to civil governments except when they command us to sin, Romans 13:5; Acts 5:29. 

Thirdly, the Bible teaches us to honor our rulers and pay the taxes they levy on us, Romans 13:7. 

Fourthly, the Bible commands us to pray for the salvation of our rulers, and for the wisdom to keep the peace and leave the church alone, I Peter 2:1-2.

Fifthly, the Bible tells us our rulers are not divine, our country is not the Kingdom of God, and that the good politics can achieve is never complete or permanent, or redemptive. Roman coins bore the image of Caesar and around his likeness, it said, 'Lord and Savior'. The Christians countered this false claim with a true one, saying no one but Jesus is Lord and Savior.
---

I agree with his assessment via Romans 13 and related verses. This can be seen in this website's archives. Including recently...

May 21 2019

Why not the Mosaic Law?

Cited

The Law of Moses is not a smorgasbord! We're not allowed to pick the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't. If you want to go the Mosaic route, you've got to go the whole way. And that's a dead end, or to quote Peter-- 

It is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers could bear.
---

Progressive revelation means that in Jesus Christ, the Church follows a new covenant, see Hebrews and Luke 22.

Interestingly...

The sermon demonstrates how Joseph's, Hebrew Bible politics would not be acceptable to most Westernized Christians today.

Why not the sermon on the mount?

Cited

The Sermon on the Mount is not a model for the state; its a model for the Kingdom of God, which our country is not, never has been , never will be, and is not supposed to be! As much as the Evangelical Left vilifies the Christian Right for its Legalism, the movements are exactly the same. Both apply the Scripture where it doesn't belong and where it won't work.

Cited

Needless to say, not everyone agrees with me on this. Some think the Bible addresses almost every political matter, and no one is more sure it does than the Theonomist or Reconstructionist. He believes the Jewish Republic is a model for all states under the Lordship of Christ. What God wanted the Jews to do then and there, He wants us to do here and now. Oh, there may be a few difference at the margin, but in substance, the Law of Moses, should be the law of the land.
---

I wrote on theonomy and my disagreements with it. I will post in comments section.

November 1 2008

N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).

Cited

Who is on the Lord's Side?

Christian liberty means, if the Bible does not command or forbid a thing, you are free to do what you want. For example, because the Bible neither commands nor forbids drinking, you're free to drink or not to drink. What you're not free to do, however, is drink without wisdom or brotherly love. What's true of drinking goes double for politics!

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.