I stumbled across the above picture on this blog, and I gave a good chuckle when I looked up the verses. Here's James 4:9 and Philippians 4:4 to save you the bother of looking them up yourself. See how kind I am?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Funny
I stumbled across the above picture on this blog, and I gave a good chuckle when I looked up the verses. Here's James 4:9 and Philippians 4:4 to save you the bother of looking them up yourself. See how kind I am?
Question:
Would you sell your eyes for five million euro? Ten million perhaps? I heard that question asked today on UCB TV, and it got me thinking. More specifically, it got me thinking about the fact that I wouldn't do it, and I doubt there are very many non-blind people that would. In other words, my answer revealed to me that my eyes are priceless. There is no amount of money you could throw at me that would make me give up my eye-sight. It's just not going to happen, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop hassling me about it.
The UCB show went on to briefly relate this question to the soul. I don't know about you, but I believe I have a soul. You can study all the various parts of me under a microscope (though I'd really rather you didn't), but none of your findings will reveal much of Declan the person to you. You can surgically remove my heart or my brain, but they won't tell you anything about what I like or what I know or how I feel. There is something invisible, something unreachable in me that makes me who I am. And it's this something that makes me knowable to people, and ultimately, it makes me knowable to God.
We can call this the heart of a man, the soul of a man, the spirit of a man. Ultimately, its simply the invisible attribute of ourselves that gives the visible attributes life and meaning. My leg itself won't have much use or purpose if its detached from my body, and my body won't have much use if its detached from life.
The point I'm getting at in a roundabout, meandering way is that the soul matters. In fact the soul is vital, in the original sense of the word. The soul is life itself, because what are we if we have not got it? Well, we're no different from animals. But of course that's absurd, because we are very much different from animals. We don't think it unusual or wrong if a tiger mauls a man to death in the jungle. We don't bring that tiger in for questioning and make him stand before a jury. We understand that tigers aren't accountable as we are, because they don't have souls. They have no inner being that they need to feed and nurture and grow. We as humans however, do.
The point I wanted to get at in the previous paragraph before I meandered some more is that we need to be very wary of our souls. We wouldn't dream of selling our eyes for all the money in the world, yet we can treat our souls as if they were of no value at all. This applies to Christians and non-Christians a like.
For Christians, we can fall into the trap of thinking that once we "accept Jesus into our hearts" that's it, job done. Next stop heaven. However, we fail to realise that eternal life starts here and now. The new creations that we become when Christ comes into our lives are not going to die. These renewed spirits of ours are what we've got, from here to eternity. Therefore we must be careful to feed them, and to keep them from being tarnished. This is part of what sanctification entails, and it's a reality that is lost on many Christians today I fear, myself included.
For non Christians, neglect of the soul is perilous. As Jesus says to His followers,
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matt. 10:28
I wonder how people who think Jesus was just a good teacher feel about such a statement. These words come in the midst of some pretty hard lessons, but they emanate from the same lips as the One who said that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
It is clear from Jesus death on the cross that He values our souls. He values that which is unseen with the naked eye, but unmistakeably real nonetheless. He values it so much that He warns people about neglecting it with such strong words. What Jesus is telling us in this passage is to forget about our eyes, and start thinking about our souls. He's telling us to stop putting so much weight on things that will eventually perish and start putting weight on the things of eternal importance (not the only time He gave such a lesson it should be noted).
That's not to say you should sell your eyes for ten million euro if you get the chance. It's to say that if something so temporal as our eyes are of that much value to you, how much more valuable should the soul be?
I remember an episode of the Simpsons when Bart sold his soul to Milhouse for $5, simply because he didn't believe he had one to begin with. I feel like many people today would be just as hasty to do similar business, not realising what it is they are relinquishing. (In case I've left you in suspense, Bart did eventually realise the error of his ways and managed to get the piece of paper that said "Bart Simpson's soul" back, and promptly ate it.)
We must all be careful not to make such a mistake with our souls, because if we are to believe Jesus, it will be the biggest mistake of our lives.
I finish with another question: Can you say with the hymnist "It is well with my soul"? There are few questions of greater importance than this one, so think carefully.
The UCB show went on to briefly relate this question to the soul. I don't know about you, but I believe I have a soul. You can study all the various parts of me under a microscope (though I'd really rather you didn't), but none of your findings will reveal much of Declan the person to you. You can surgically remove my heart or my brain, but they won't tell you anything about what I like or what I know or how I feel. There is something invisible, something unreachable in me that makes me who I am. And it's this something that makes me knowable to people, and ultimately, it makes me knowable to God.
We can call this the heart of a man, the soul of a man, the spirit of a man. Ultimately, its simply the invisible attribute of ourselves that gives the visible attributes life and meaning. My leg itself won't have much use or purpose if its detached from my body, and my body won't have much use if its detached from life.
The point I'm getting at in a roundabout, meandering way is that the soul matters. In fact the soul is vital, in the original sense of the word. The soul is life itself, because what are we if we have not got it? Well, we're no different from animals. But of course that's absurd, because we are very much different from animals. We don't think it unusual or wrong if a tiger mauls a man to death in the jungle. We don't bring that tiger in for questioning and make him stand before a jury. We understand that tigers aren't accountable as we are, because they don't have souls. They have no inner being that they need to feed and nurture and grow. We as humans however, do.
The point I wanted to get at in the previous paragraph before I meandered some more is that we need to be very wary of our souls. We wouldn't dream of selling our eyes for all the money in the world, yet we can treat our souls as if they were of no value at all. This applies to Christians and non-Christians a like.
For Christians, we can fall into the trap of thinking that once we "accept Jesus into our hearts" that's it, job done. Next stop heaven. However, we fail to realise that eternal life starts here and now. The new creations that we become when Christ comes into our lives are not going to die. These renewed spirits of ours are what we've got, from here to eternity. Therefore we must be careful to feed them, and to keep them from being tarnished. This is part of what sanctification entails, and it's a reality that is lost on many Christians today I fear, myself included.
For non Christians, neglect of the soul is perilous. As Jesus says to His followers,
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matt. 10:28
I wonder how people who think Jesus was just a good teacher feel about such a statement. These words come in the midst of some pretty hard lessons, but they emanate from the same lips as the One who said that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
It is clear from Jesus death on the cross that He values our souls. He values that which is unseen with the naked eye, but unmistakeably real nonetheless. He values it so much that He warns people about neglecting it with such strong words. What Jesus is telling us in this passage is to forget about our eyes, and start thinking about our souls. He's telling us to stop putting so much weight on things that will eventually perish and start putting weight on the things of eternal importance (not the only time He gave such a lesson it should be noted).
That's not to say you should sell your eyes for ten million euro if you get the chance. It's to say that if something so temporal as our eyes are of that much value to you, how much more valuable should the soul be?
I remember an episode of the Simpsons when Bart sold his soul to Milhouse for $5, simply because he didn't believe he had one to begin with. I feel like many people today would be just as hasty to do similar business, not realising what it is they are relinquishing. (In case I've left you in suspense, Bart did eventually realise the error of his ways and managed to get the piece of paper that said "Bart Simpson's soul" back, and promptly ate it.)
We must all be careful not to make such a mistake with our souls, because if we are to believe Jesus, it will be the biggest mistake of our lives.
I finish with another question: Can you say with the hymnist "It is well with my soul"? There are few questions of greater importance than this one, so think carefully.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
What's So Good About the Gospel?
I just heard from a high ranking source in NUIG Christian Union that next weeks meeting will be a discussion based on the question "What is the Gospel?" This excites me very much.I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard this question asked over the last few months, and every time I reflect on it I'm never fully happy with what my own answer is.
There are a few snappy little sentences that sum up the Gospel quite nicely - "God with us", or "Christ in you, the hope of glory". These I like, but to a lot people they don't mean very much. They might sound very nice (and I think they do), but what's the meat of them?
I'm reminded of that scene in the cartoon version of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe when Beaver mentions Aslan's name, and all the kids suddenly display beaming smiles of hope, despite not really having a clue who Aslan actually is.
The same thing can happen with these short little Gospel summaries. You can be left with a smile on your face upon hearing them, but then ten seconds later you're scratching your head wondering what it's all about.
I'm not going to attempt an exhaustive Gospel message in this blog, but I will quickly look at Romans 1:16-17, which reveals what the Gospel is and why it is so powerful.
First off, the what:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." - Rom. 1:16
In other words, the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. To understand our need for salvation, we need read nothing more than Romans 1:18-32, or even take a long, hard look at ourselves. To understand the means of salvation, we need look no further than the life (and death…and then life again) of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is good news because it addresses mans most fundamental problem – sin. When we realize our sinfulness in all its totality, only then can we see our need for salvation.
The reason Paul is so enthusiastic about the Gospel, the reason why he's willing to go to prison over it, and even die because of it, is because it is a message of salvation. It is a message that will save people, even from the very sting of death itself, because it deals effectively with the fact we have a holy God, and we are an unholy people who deserve wrath. Doesn’t such a message sound like something worth dying for?
We may then wonder how such salvation is possible. Is the Gospel basically God throwing us a rope to grab onto, and if so, then what's the point? Escapism?
Paul says why the Gospel is the power of God in the next verse, as he writes,
"...it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...For in it the righteousness of God is revealed..."
That little word "of'" is ambiguous to say the least, but in this context we can take "righteousness of God" to mean two things, which makes the ambiguity necessary. First, it means that the righteousness that God Himself possesses is revealed. In the Gospel, we see God for who He really is. After all, as Jesus said, "if you have seen Me you have seen the Father". God made Himself known to humanity by being "with us" in Jesus, and to behold Him is to behold the very essence and character of God. In fact it is to behold God Himself.
Secondly, the “righteousness of God” refers to the righteousness that comes from God; the righteousness that is imparted to us by God Himself, which is also His own righteousness. This, above all else, is why the Gospel is good news. God hasn't just thrown us a rope. He has actually come down to our world in order to restore us and redeem us.
As Dr Arden Autry says, “Salvation isn’t about God taking us out of creation. It’s about God coming down to creation and restoring it”. These are simple words, but how often do we miss the whole point, and make Christianity sound like some belief system that takes you to a different plane of thought completely unrelated to the world around us. We damage ourselves and damage others by turning Christian salvation into an escape hatch, instead of living it out and relating the utter truth of it.
And the truth of it is that this holy and just God is also a God who desires restoration, and He accomplishes this in us by imparting His very life into all who believe in Jesus Christ. This is what Paul is talking about when he writes about the “mystery” that was hidden for ages. He reveals that mystery, which is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. That is, our hope of being restored to being men and women who perfectly reflect the character of God. We do not become God, but we become His image bearers, as we were originally intended to be. This only comes to fruition when we die of course, but here on earth we are being transformed from one degree of glory to another, until that day when we see Him and become like Him in pure perfection.
A holy God pronounces unholy people righteous by faith, and they can now live at peace with God and in fellowship with one another, with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
Doesn’t that sound like good news? I think so anyway.
There’s a lot more to be said about the Gospel of course, and certainly at lot more that could be unpacked from these verses, but here's a little taster anyway.
Song of the Week #5
I've been inundated with emails begging me to my post the song of the week, and since I hate to disappoint, here it is.
The song is called 'Lump Sum' and it's taken from the album 'For Emma, Forever Ago' by Bon Iver. The way I came across this album was through teletext actually, which is a little strange I know. I occasionally go on to page 377 where they do album reviews, and this album was not only reviewed, but if memory serves me correct it got the full 5 stars, so I decided to check it out.
Needless to say, I did, and I've been going back to it ever since, though I'm not 100% sure why. I'm not a huge fan of his voice, I can barely make out a single line of his lyrics, and the guitar work is nothing special. But yet somehow the music just seems to draw me in. You'll have to hear it for yourself to understand what I'm saying, so without further delay, here it is. Be sure to let me know what you think, because I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this Wisconsin Wood-Cabin Man.
The song is called 'Lump Sum' and it's taken from the album 'For Emma, Forever Ago' by Bon Iver. The way I came across this album was through teletext actually, which is a little strange I know. I occasionally go on to page 377 where they do album reviews, and this album was not only reviewed, but if memory serves me correct it got the full 5 stars, so I decided to check it out.
Needless to say, I did, and I've been going back to it ever since, though I'm not 100% sure why. I'm not a huge fan of his voice, I can barely make out a single line of his lyrics, and the guitar work is nothing special. But yet somehow the music just seems to draw me in. You'll have to hear it for yourself to understand what I'm saying, so without further delay, here it is. Be sure to let me know what you think, because I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this Wisconsin Wood-Cabin Man.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Christian Facebook Group
Look at me, trying to do anything but finish my assignment on The Person of Christ. It's like that time I learned how to play Snakebite Boogie by Clive Carroll, just to avoid doing my final year project. And let me tell you, there are few more difficult songs to learn than it. I've known how to play it for two years now, and I can still only manage to make it sound about 60% right, which kind of sucks actually. Because even though what I'm doing is in reality very difficult, it just doesn't sound quite right, so it's difficulty is lost on people, and I don't look as impressive a guitarist as I should. In other news, I'm both proud and self-seeking.
Anyway, my quick post here is in relation to that Facebook group that's doing the rounds. It's called The Great Big Christians In Ireland Experiment (Christians on Facebook). The 'experiment' is to try and get all the Christians in Ireland, who are also on Facebook, into one group. Well, I've decided not to join this group for a couple of reasons:
1 - I think it would be cool to be the only Christian in Ireland (who is also on Facebook) not to be in the group. I mean I'd basically be the reason for this experiment failing. That sounds like a good conversation piece in any Christian setting.
2 - I'm really stubborn.
3 - Here's my real reason. I just feel like it's slightly misleading. There are 1007 people in the group now, but who's to say they are all Christians? I have no reason to believe they aren't but I have no reason to believe they are either. The only ones I know to be Christian are the ones that I know personally. That's not to say you can't know someone is a Christian if you don't know them personally. It's just to say that a mere profession isn't exactly worth much. I mean if you ask every American whether they're Christian or not you'll probably find a significantly large portion say they are, yet the behaviour of American society in general would seem to suggest otherwise (not to pick on America or anything [?]).
A group like this just reminds me of those forwards that say 'Pass this on to all your friends if you're not ashamed of Jesus' or something like that. What's the point? Jesus obviously isn't overly concerned about lip service and such. Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to think that His goal for the Church isn't one big Facebook group with every Christian on it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's just something...off about that picture, but maybe it's just me. I mean what's next? A Facebook application that provides you with your daily devotional?
I know the point of this experiment isn't to show our non-Christian friends that we're Christian. This group was probably started out of a good heart, and most people join it not to prove that they are Christian, but because they are Christians, they are on Facebook, so why not accept the invitation? The whole thing just seems a bit pointless to me, but hey, if people are using this group to pray for each other and encourage each other and so forth, then far be it from me to diss it. From the 'Recent News' section however, it seems like a numbers game so far, but there's one number you're not going to get Mr Nelson!
Anyway, my quick post here is in relation to that Facebook group that's doing the rounds. It's called The Great Big Christians In Ireland Experiment (Christians on Facebook). The 'experiment' is to try and get all the Christians in Ireland, who are also on Facebook, into one group. Well, I've decided not to join this group for a couple of reasons:
1 - I think it would be cool to be the only Christian in Ireland (who is also on Facebook) not to be in the group. I mean I'd basically be the reason for this experiment failing. That sounds like a good conversation piece in any Christian setting.
2 - I'm really stubborn.
3 - Here's my real reason. I just feel like it's slightly misleading. There are 1007 people in the group now, but who's to say they are all Christians? I have no reason to believe they aren't but I have no reason to believe they are either. The only ones I know to be Christian are the ones that I know personally. That's not to say you can't know someone is a Christian if you don't know them personally. It's just to say that a mere profession isn't exactly worth much. I mean if you ask every American whether they're Christian or not you'll probably find a significantly large portion say they are, yet the behaviour of American society in general would seem to suggest otherwise (not to pick on America or anything [?]).
A group like this just reminds me of those forwards that say 'Pass this on to all your friends if you're not ashamed of Jesus' or something like that. What's the point? Jesus obviously isn't overly concerned about lip service and such. Maybe I'm wrong, but I happen to think that His goal for the Church isn't one big Facebook group with every Christian on it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's just something...off about that picture, but maybe it's just me. I mean what's next? A Facebook application that provides you with your daily devotional?
I know the point of this experiment isn't to show our non-Christian friends that we're Christian. This group was probably started out of a good heart, and most people join it not to prove that they are Christian, but because they are Christians, they are on Facebook, so why not accept the invitation? The whole thing just seems a bit pointless to me, but hey, if people are using this group to pray for each other and encourage each other and so forth, then far be it from me to diss it. From the 'Recent News' section however, it seems like a numbers game so far, but there's one number you're not going to get Mr Nelson!
Predestined To Be an Arminian?
In his book A Generous Contradiction Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren claims to be both a Clavinist and and Arminian. For those of you who don't know, this means that McLaren thinks that salvation is based solely on God's soveriegn choice, but he also believes that it's based on God's will and our choice. This is of course a massive contradiciton, and I have no doubt it's not the only one to emanate from the pen of Brian McLaren.
My point here however isn't to diss Brian McLaren, though I guess I've managed to do that anyway (you only have to read the full title of the aforementioned book to come up with enough fodder for doing so). My aim is to relate my own struggle with the Calvin/Arminius debate.
To be honest I didn't even hear of such a debate until a few years ago, at which point the Arminian way seemed most 'correct' to me based on my current knowledge of God and the Bible and so forth. However, upon listening to several Calvinist viewpoints, and reading some material by R.C. Sproul (who pretty much manages to talk about Calvin's doctrine of predestination every second sentence, no matter the topic....Okay I exaggerate, but he's a Calvinist through and through) the Arminian view is not quite as sturdy as I once thought.
Above all else, it seems to me that Romans 9 should really settle the debate, with verse 16 being the core of Calvinistic doctrine:
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
How does an Arminian respond to this text? How can anyone say that salvation depends both on God and our choice when a verse like this is contained in the Bible?
I must admit, the Arminian way sounds fairer. To have our salvation based on God's sovereignty and our free will seems like the right way to do things. However, with our own natural free wills, can we ever choose God? What makes one man choose to follow Christ and another man choose not to follow him? Both are born into the same sin. Both have been inwardly corrupted because of the Fall, so how can one choose God and one reject God?
The choices we make in life are based on our desires. The question is, can some people's natural desire be to turn to God? When God offers salvation, does anyone on the earth have the natural capacity to accept that salvation and put their faith in God? If so, why them and not countless others?
In Romans 3 we are told that "no one seeks God". This seems to me to indicate that out of man's natural free will, there is none who chooses God. Therefore, we need God to plant in us the desire to seek after Him, and so even our seeking after God depends not on us, but on God.
You might think "Well what about my free will? Doesn't this just make me some kind of robot?" This is a question I asked of Calvinism, and the answer lies in the source of our decision making - our hearts. R.C. Sproul puts it this way:
"To be sure, for us to choose Christ, God must change our heart. That is precisely what He does. He changes our heart for us. He gives us a desire for Himself that we otherwise would not have. Then we choose Him out of the desire that is within us. We freely choose Him because we want to choose Him. That is the wonder of His grace."
This line of reasoning is compelling, and so I'm very interested to see how Dr Arden Autry approaches Romans 9 from the viewpoint of a non-Calvinist (though not quite an Arminian). He likes to joke about this big debate by saying " I guess I just wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist", which I think is pretty funny. However, the arguments put forward by Paul in Romans 9 cannot be ignored. And you certainly can't set Scripture against itself by saying John 3:16 disproves what Paul says, just like you can't say Jesus is not the Creator but a creature, based on Colossians 1:15. The question is, do we interpret Romans 9 in light of John 3:16 and other similar passages, or do we interpret these other passages in light of Romans 9 and the likes?
There may be an Arminian line of reasoning that makes sense of Romans 9, but I can imagine that much is read between the lines to try and make it fit. What leaves me leaning toward the Calvinist view is the fact that Paul asks the rhetorical question "Is there injustice on God's part?". If he was preaching an Arminian doctrine on predestination, such a question would not arise, becasue the Arminian viewpoint clearly demonstrates justice in action. However, when hearing the Calvinist argument, that's almost the first question on everyone's lips, and Paul is quick to address it.
I don't claim to have made up my mind to become a Calvinist. At the end of the day, such a debate is of secondary importance, and there are Christians who really don't care what side they're on, which is fine. However, grappling with the nature of God and salvation is something that intrigues me, so I can't just ignore such a debate. I would be interested to reading some comments from others, Arminian's and Calvinists alike, and even people who have no partiality towards either. What is it about Calvinism that you don't agree with? Why do you believe Arminianism to be the right way? How are we to interpret Romans 9?
Welcome to my labour of love everyone!
My point here however isn't to diss Brian McLaren, though I guess I've managed to do that anyway (you only have to read the full title of the aforementioned book to come up with enough fodder for doing so). My aim is to relate my own struggle with the Calvin/Arminius debate.
To be honest I didn't even hear of such a debate until a few years ago, at which point the Arminian way seemed most 'correct' to me based on my current knowledge of God and the Bible and so forth. However, upon listening to several Calvinist viewpoints, and reading some material by R.C. Sproul (who pretty much manages to talk about Calvin's doctrine of predestination every second sentence, no matter the topic....Okay I exaggerate, but he's a Calvinist through and through) the Arminian view is not quite as sturdy as I once thought.
Above all else, it seems to me that Romans 9 should really settle the debate, with verse 16 being the core of Calvinistic doctrine:
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
How does an Arminian respond to this text? How can anyone say that salvation depends both on God and our choice when a verse like this is contained in the Bible?
I must admit, the Arminian way sounds fairer. To have our salvation based on God's sovereignty and our free will seems like the right way to do things. However, with our own natural free wills, can we ever choose God? What makes one man choose to follow Christ and another man choose not to follow him? Both are born into the same sin. Both have been inwardly corrupted because of the Fall, so how can one choose God and one reject God?
The choices we make in life are based on our desires. The question is, can some people's natural desire be to turn to God? When God offers salvation, does anyone on the earth have the natural capacity to accept that salvation and put their faith in God? If so, why them and not countless others?
In Romans 3 we are told that "no one seeks God". This seems to me to indicate that out of man's natural free will, there is none who chooses God. Therefore, we need God to plant in us the desire to seek after Him, and so even our seeking after God depends not on us, but on God.
You might think "Well what about my free will? Doesn't this just make me some kind of robot?" This is a question I asked of Calvinism, and the answer lies in the source of our decision making - our hearts. R.C. Sproul puts it this way:
"To be sure, for us to choose Christ, God must change our heart. That is precisely what He does. He changes our heart for us. He gives us a desire for Himself that we otherwise would not have. Then we choose Him out of the desire that is within us. We freely choose Him because we want to choose Him. That is the wonder of His grace."
This line of reasoning is compelling, and so I'm very interested to see how Dr Arden Autry approaches Romans 9 from the viewpoint of a non-Calvinist (though not quite an Arminian). He likes to joke about this big debate by saying " I guess I just wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist", which I think is pretty funny. However, the arguments put forward by Paul in Romans 9 cannot be ignored. And you certainly can't set Scripture against itself by saying John 3:16 disproves what Paul says, just like you can't say Jesus is not the Creator but a creature, based on Colossians 1:15. The question is, do we interpret Romans 9 in light of John 3:16 and other similar passages, or do we interpret these other passages in light of Romans 9 and the likes?
There may be an Arminian line of reasoning that makes sense of Romans 9, but I can imagine that much is read between the lines to try and make it fit. What leaves me leaning toward the Calvinist view is the fact that Paul asks the rhetorical question "Is there injustice on God's part?". If he was preaching an Arminian doctrine on predestination, such a question would not arise, becasue the Arminian viewpoint clearly demonstrates justice in action. However, when hearing the Calvinist argument, that's almost the first question on everyone's lips, and Paul is quick to address it.
I don't claim to have made up my mind to become a Calvinist. At the end of the day, such a debate is of secondary importance, and there are Christians who really don't care what side they're on, which is fine. However, grappling with the nature of God and salvation is something that intrigues me, so I can't just ignore such a debate. I would be interested to reading some comments from others, Arminian's and Calvinists alike, and even people who have no partiality towards either. What is it about Calvinism that you don't agree with? Why do you believe Arminianism to be the right way? How are we to interpret Romans 9?
Welcome to my labour of love everyone!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bus Drivers Are Jerks
I just spent a little over 12 hours in Dublin between yesterday and today, half of which I slept through. Considering I took a 4 hour bus ride there and back, that may sound like folly, madness, idiocy. However, once you've seen Sun Kil Moon play live, then you'll understand.
As an avid fan I was going into the gig with a mixture of excitement and caution. I just wasn't sure what their live sound would be like, because a lot of their songs have reasonably complex arrangements, with guitar over-dubs galore. However, by the end of the second song I was just blown away. They started with a low key version of Glenn Tipton, and followed that up with a Red House Painters favourite of mine, Make Like Paper. The crunching electric guitars were in full swing, as were the several-minutes-long solos, and it all came together perfectly for what was probably about 10 minutes of pure audio bliss. So yeah, Make Like Paper was definitely the highlight in a show full of highs.
They did a few other 'big songs', such as River, Tonight The Sky and Duk Koo Kim, all of which were brilliantly executed. Since most readers probably don't know many of these songs (not for lack of trying on my part), I'll stop talking about them any second now, but suffice to say you're missing out on one of the hidden gems of our generation if you have yet to give Sun Kil Moon a proper chance.
I managed to actually rope three other people to come along with me, which was great. Three ex-Encounter heads at that, which was doubly great - Ellisha, Keith and Luke. I knew Luke was coming a while back, but Keith and Ellisha were latecomers, buying their tickets an hour before the gig.
Much to Keith's disappointment, Sun Kil Moon were not a Korean band, but he didn't let that setback spoil his night, and unless he was lying to me (and he better not have been lying to me, his disciple of all people), he seemed to think highly of Mark Kozelek's latest project.
Luke and Ellisha seemed to enjoy it too, which was nice, although to be honest I really didn't care whether they did or not. No I'm just kidding. I did care. My taste in music is like my baby. If you don't like it, then I may just not invite you to my birthday. That's how personal I take it, so it was good that they at least pretended to like it, even if they weren't fans.
It was of course great to catch up with these fine people too. I hadn't seen them in probably close to two months, so some hang-out time was definitely the order of the day.
On a slightly different note, I did have a few strange/annoying experiences on the trip, which started from the very beginning. I went to get the Bus Eireann bus to Dublin outside the college, but when I got on, the bus driver told me to get the bus behind him, for reasons that still baffle me. I mean his bus was almost empty, so it's not like he couldn't squeeze me in. He did say the bus behind was a non-stop bus, so maybe he thought I'd prefer that one, but since when have bus drivers been a people to look out for the comfort of others? There are exception of course, but as a rule of thumb, all bus drivers are grade A jerks. This I learned at a young age, and it's a statement that continues to be true with every passing bus journey.
Anyway, I did as the bus driver said and waited for the non-stop bus. However, as I stuck out my arm to wave it down, the non-stop bus lived up to its reputation and (not surprisingly now that I've had time to think about it) didn't stop. In fact the bus driver didn't even have the decency to look me in the eye as he drove past. Maybe not seeing the look of contempt on would-be passengers faces helps him sleep at night.
As an avid fan I was going into the gig with a mixture of excitement and caution. I just wasn't sure what their live sound would be like, because a lot of their songs have reasonably complex arrangements, with guitar over-dubs galore. However, by the end of the second song I was just blown away. They started with a low key version of Glenn Tipton, and followed that up with a Red House Painters favourite of mine, Make Like Paper. The crunching electric guitars were in full swing, as were the several-minutes-long solos, and it all came together perfectly for what was probably about 10 minutes of pure audio bliss. So yeah, Make Like Paper was definitely the highlight in a show full of highs.
They did a few other 'big songs', such as River, Tonight The Sky and Duk Koo Kim, all of which were brilliantly executed. Since most readers probably don't know many of these songs (not for lack of trying on my part), I'll stop talking about them any second now, but suffice to say you're missing out on one of the hidden gems of our generation if you have yet to give Sun Kil Moon a proper chance.
I managed to actually rope three other people to come along with me, which was great. Three ex-Encounter heads at that, which was doubly great - Ellisha, Keith and Luke. I knew Luke was coming a while back, but Keith and Ellisha were latecomers, buying their tickets an hour before the gig.
Much to Keith's disappointment, Sun Kil Moon were not a Korean band, but he didn't let that setback spoil his night, and unless he was lying to me (and he better not have been lying to me, his disciple of all people), he seemed to think highly of Mark Kozelek's latest project.
Luke and Ellisha seemed to enjoy it too, which was nice, although to be honest I really didn't care whether they did or not. No I'm just kidding. I did care. My taste in music is like my baby. If you don't like it, then I may just not invite you to my birthday. That's how personal I take it, so it was good that they at least pretended to like it, even if they weren't fans.
It was of course great to catch up with these fine people too. I hadn't seen them in probably close to two months, so some hang-out time was definitely the order of the day.
On a slightly different note, I did have a few strange/annoying experiences on the trip, which started from the very beginning. I went to get the Bus Eireann bus to Dublin outside the college, but when I got on, the bus driver told me to get the bus behind him, for reasons that still baffle me. I mean his bus was almost empty, so it's not like he couldn't squeeze me in. He did say the bus behind was a non-stop bus, so maybe he thought I'd prefer that one, but since when have bus drivers been a people to look out for the comfort of others? There are exception of course, but as a rule of thumb, all bus drivers are grade A jerks. This I learned at a young age, and it's a statement that continues to be true with every passing bus journey.
Anyway, I did as the bus driver said and waited for the non-stop bus. However, as I stuck out my arm to wave it down, the non-stop bus lived up to its reputation and (not surprisingly now that I've had time to think about it) didn't stop. In fact the bus driver didn't even have the decency to look me in the eye as he drove past. Maybe not seeing the look of contempt on would-be passengers faces helps him sleep at night.
Needless to say, I was very put out. I actually had to walk around for a bit and compose myself, because I was just incredibly ticked off. I started getting paranoid, thinking that this was all a big conspiracy on the part of the bus drivers. As if they had planned this at the station.
"All right. I'll pull in and tell him to get the next bus, and you just zoom on by and pretend to not even notice him. Got it? Oh and remember, if you do have to pick someone up and they give you a 20 euro note, make sure you look at them as if they just insulted your mother and sister. Then give them the change, but act as if it's the most painful, difficult, and time consuming thing you've ever had to do, and that if they make you do it again you may just kill them."
Anyway, I calmed down and got the City Link bus soon after, which probably arrived in Dublin earlier than the Bus Eireann bus ironically enough.
My other weird experience was having a man squeeze soap onto my hands in a very tiny and otherwise unassuming bathroom, and hand me some paper towels after had I washed them (that kind of sounds like a prison story, doesn't it?). I've never had that happen to me in a bathroom before, and quite frankly I hope it never happens again. Some men were actually just not bothering to wash their hands in order to avoid him, but almost in a trance-like state I went through the whole procedure, and came out the other side a slightly emasculated and confused man. Some man time with Keith and Luke cured that right up though, so I'm back to normal again.
"All right. I'll pull in and tell him to get the next bus, and you just zoom on by and pretend to not even notice him. Got it? Oh and remember, if you do have to pick someone up and they give you a 20 euro note, make sure you look at them as if they just insulted your mother and sister. Then give them the change, but act as if it's the most painful, difficult, and time consuming thing you've ever had to do, and that if they make you do it again you may just kill them."
Anyway, I calmed down and got the City Link bus soon after, which probably arrived in Dublin earlier than the Bus Eireann bus ironically enough.
My other weird experience was having a man squeeze soap onto my hands in a very tiny and otherwise unassuming bathroom, and hand me some paper towels after had I washed them (that kind of sounds like a prison story, doesn't it?). I've never had that happen to me in a bathroom before, and quite frankly I hope it never happens again. Some men were actually just not bothering to wash their hands in order to avoid him, but almost in a trance-like state I went through the whole procedure, and came out the other side a slightly emasculated and confused man. Some man time with Keith and Luke cured that right up though, so I'm back to normal again.
I did tip the guy 50c though, which I consider to be a very generous tip given the service on offer. I mean he basically spared me the trouble of applying a small amount of pressure to a soap dispenser, and helped me avoid the less than arduous task of raising my hands to pick out a paper towel. These are things I really don't mind doing on my own. In fact I rather like doing them on my own, unaided by strange men bearing soap and paper towels. I guess I just like my trips to the bathroom to be as private as possible. That said however, had he offered to clean the toilet seat for me before I used it, then we'd be in business. I'm talking 2 euro minimum for that kind of service. Which reminds me - who are these people that don't clean up after themselves? They're ruining it for the rest of us, because there's no way I'm cleaning up something that isn't mine. Anyway, I better stop before this post stoops any lower.
Good times in Dublin, Sun Kil Moon are the greatest band ever. That's about all you need to know.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
God Really Does Hate Figs
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the passage in Mark 11 where Jesus curses a fig tree. With the help of R.C. Sproul, I presented a reasonably good line of thinking as to why Jesus might do such a seemingly capricious thing.
Enter Charles Price to complete that line of thinking.
I watched the final part of his series 'In the Beginning' last Monday, and I have to say it was one of his best (I think I say that about all his sermons, but whatever). He was talking about the Fall, and its various consequences.
To give you an extremely brief overview, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they ate of the forbidden fruit, and thus ruined things for the rest of us. After they did this disobedient deed, we're told two things in the very next verse - they became aware of their nakedness, and as a result, they did something about it.
Do you remember what they did? Well, just to remind/inform you, they made some clothes for themselves. And more to the point, they made the clothes out of, that's right, fig leaves.
This I find amazing. Not the fact that they managed to sew fig leaves together in order to make clothes (though that is impressive). But the fact that the Bible is so consistent, so beautifully symbolic, right the way through from Genesis to Mark and beyond.
As Charles Price says, 'fig trees represent human effort'. I mentioned in my previous post about the fig tree Jesus encountered appearing to be good based on outward appearance, but on closer inspection is was useless and flawed. As R.C. Sproul points out, this is an object lesson, where the fig tree represents someone who appears to be righteous, but the external appearance is covering over an internal deficiency.
As we see on closer inspection of Genesis however, this wasn't the first time a fig tree performed such a devious task of deception. Adam and Eve, feeling naked and exposed, decided to try and cover over their nakedness by clothing themselves in fig leaves. They tried in their own effort to appear 'righteous' by an outward manifestation. But this didn't work for them, and it certainly doesn't work for us today.
With regards Adam and Eve, God intervened mercifully by shedding the blood of an animal, and clothing them with garments of skin. This was a foreshadowing of what God has done for us, when He intervened by shedding the blood of His Son, that we might be clothed with righteousness.
And so fig trees, from the very beginning, symbolize human effort, which is not what God requires of us in order to be made right with Him, and which gives Him reasonable grounds not to like fig trees very much (though of course there's nothing inherently wrong with a fig tree). I just find it remarkable the way the Bible comes together like this, and the way such profoundness can come from the most simple of details.
*********************************************************
Here's a Youtube link to the aforementioned Charles Price sermon. I recommend you give it a watch (although I haven't actually seen it all yet, but I'll remedy that soon enough).
Enter Charles Price to complete that line of thinking.
I watched the final part of his series 'In the Beginning' last Monday, and I have to say it was one of his best (I think I say that about all his sermons, but whatever). He was talking about the Fall, and its various consequences.
To give you an extremely brief overview, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they ate of the forbidden fruit, and thus ruined things for the rest of us. After they did this disobedient deed, we're told two things in the very next verse - they became aware of their nakedness, and as a result, they did something about it.
Do you remember what they did? Well, just to remind/inform you, they made some clothes for themselves. And more to the point, they made the clothes out of, that's right, fig leaves.
This I find amazing. Not the fact that they managed to sew fig leaves together in order to make clothes (though that is impressive). But the fact that the Bible is so consistent, so beautifully symbolic, right the way through from Genesis to Mark and beyond.
As Charles Price says, 'fig trees represent human effort'. I mentioned in my previous post about the fig tree Jesus encountered appearing to be good based on outward appearance, but on closer inspection is was useless and flawed. As R.C. Sproul points out, this is an object lesson, where the fig tree represents someone who appears to be righteous, but the external appearance is covering over an internal deficiency.
As we see on closer inspection of Genesis however, this wasn't the first time a fig tree performed such a devious task of deception. Adam and Eve, feeling naked and exposed, decided to try and cover over their nakedness by clothing themselves in fig leaves. They tried in their own effort to appear 'righteous' by an outward manifestation. But this didn't work for them, and it certainly doesn't work for us today.
With regards Adam and Eve, God intervened mercifully by shedding the blood of an animal, and clothing them with garments of skin. This was a foreshadowing of what God has done for us, when He intervened by shedding the blood of His Son, that we might be clothed with righteousness.
And so fig trees, from the very beginning, symbolize human effort, which is not what God requires of us in order to be made right with Him, and which gives Him reasonable grounds not to like fig trees very much (though of course there's nothing inherently wrong with a fig tree). I just find it remarkable the way the Bible comes together like this, and the way such profoundness can come from the most simple of details.
*********************************************************
Here's a Youtube link to the aforementioned Charles Price sermon. I recommend you give it a watch (although I haven't actually seen it all yet, but I'll remedy that soon enough).
Charles Price - In The Beginning
Monday, September 15, 2008
Think About It
Here's some food for thought: was Reverend Camden the original Emergent Leader? That notion just dawned on me a couple of minutes ago, so I wanted to share it and see if any former Seventh Heaven watchers who don't value their dignity would come forward and support my claim. Come on now, don't be embarrassed. It's liberating to tell the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)