Archive for the ‘theology’ Category

h1

Why I am not a Calvinist

March 4, 2010
First have some humor about the pictures will ya? It is not my fault how Calvinists are perceived!
Giving credit where it is due http://thedissidentblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/motivational-poster-calvinism/
I was a hard core Arminian, but when I found Grace (or God showed me His Grace) it screwed me up. I was told I was “Calvinist” in my ideas (Except for free will) and so I did some research on it. Of all people, James White convinced me I could not be a Calvinist… LOL! I think that is funny. It is not the gymnastics to make John 3:16 fit the theology that convinced me, it was that when I read the teachings of Calvinists… such as one is spiritually dead so they cannot hear God, and I read in Genesis where Adam not only hears God after eating the fruit, but (being spiritually dead) interacts with God… as well as Cain and many other “spiritually dead” individuals. I also could not get past how, if we are totally depraved, that God hands us over to a depraved mind as Romans teaches… How can a totally depraved person be more depraved? I ask these questions and get numerous answers, but all of them miss the point or are answered in a “double speak” that rivals Mormonism.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I read Calvin and have gained some great insight, yet what I see in his teachings see remote from modern day “TULIP” that defines Calvinism today.
I hold theology like water. Water does it job, it seeps in to place it should and should not go. It flows sweetly at times and at times is a tsunami… yet, I do not hold to theology like a brick wall that must be built to keep others out or myself restrained. That is religion… God wants a flowing relationship not a static reading to the living word. God wants to wrestle, fight, hate, argue, love, struggle, doubt, have certainty, trust, question, and most of all be honest with Him and in turn ourselves. To me, if a theology keeps God at bay or makes God too small then it may not be a good theology. Likewise though, there are some things I see that are straightforward in scripture… but then even those are up to debate by others… In a way, our relationship with God is like any other relationship… it has ups and downs but do be alive and to learn how to be fully human, to me, that is what it takes to learn how to love and trust God. The final thing about my theology is this. I am the sick one in need of a Dr. while God knows what is going on. He is God and I am not… and to me that is the start of understanding what the relationship is about.
As far as some “good” Calvinists… check out Steve Brown… for all my griping about Calvinists, there are a couple left out there who give me hope for the rest…
Share/Save/Bookmark

a2a_linkname=document.title;a2a_linkurl=location.href;

h1

I am Chalcedon compliant… so shut up… LOL!

October 26, 2008

You Scored as Chalcedon compliant

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you’re not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant

100%

Monophysitism

67%

Nestorianism

50%

Pelagianism

50%

Modalism

33%

Monarchianism

17%

Albigensianism

0%

Donatism

0%

Socinianism

0%

Apollanarian

0%

Docetism

0%

Adoptionist

0%

Arianism

0%

Gnosticism

0%

h1

I am Chalcedon compliant… so shut up… LOL!

October 26, 2008





You Scored as Chalcedon compliant

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you’re not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.






Chalcedon compliant




100%





Monophysitism




67%





Nestorianism




50%





Pelagianism




50%





Modalism




33%





Monarchianism




17%





Albigensianism




0%





Donatism




0%





Socinianism




0%





Apollanarian




0%





Docetism




0%





Adoptionist




0%





Arianism




0%





Gnosticism




0%

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

Some N. T. Wright…

May 6, 2008
N. T. Wright

2. On Worship:

3. On the Sacraments:

h1

Some N. T. Wright…

May 6, 2008
N. T. Wright

2. On Worship:

3. On the Sacraments:

h1

Jack Chick… now in animation

May 2, 2008
I was a huge Jack Chick fan years ago, but as I grew I did not see things quite like Jack. This was pointed out by a new friend Michael Krahn. I found it compelling on many different levels. Watch it, read the write up on it then let’s talk!

http://p.castfire.com/Xu7m0/video/11122/bbtv_2008-04-30-014242.flv

Talk points.

1. Do you think the polarization of the opposing men is fair?
2. Is the Fatherhood of God brotherhood of man not in the Bible as claimed?
3. Could the presentation have been more balanced?
4. When they are in hell, what do you think of Jack Chick stating it is only “temporary?”
5. Is “judgment” only bad?

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

Jack Chick… now in animation

May 2, 2008
I was a huge Jack Chick fan years ago, but as I grew I did not see things quite like Jack. This was pointed out by a new friend Michael Krahn. I found it compelling on many different levels. Watch it, read the write up on it then let’s talk!

Talk points.

1. Do you think the polarization of the opposing men is fair?
2. Is the Fatherhood of God brotherhood of man not in the Bible as claimed?
3. Could the presentation have been more balanced?
4. When they are in hell, what do you think of Jack Chick stating it is only “temporary?”
5. Is “judgment” only bad?

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

Just to be super clear … YES! I believe in life after death!

April 23, 2008

Just to be super clear … YES! I believe in life after death!

I have not read the book “Everything Must Change”, so I will not be so foolish as some to comment on a book I have nto read. Yet I have read many of Brian’s other books and listen to hours of lectures and on and on. Much I hear critics say about Brian I have not seen or heard from him. Recently a friend pointed to an article that was a bit disturbing as it was hard to understand what Brian was stating.

The first link was one I was glad to read as it seemed to clear up some things people have said against Brian. I think that most the critics of McLaren do not understand that other views and interpretations are out there about books like The Revelation. It seems that if one cannot grasp that even some interpretations that are considered the “most biblical” (as well as some doctrines” are relatively new in their development and often are based on summations of creeds and commentaries as well as traditions passed on by men. (Not to be confused with the traditions and teachings passed on by the Apostles.)

I do not recommend blindly trusting or believing anyone. Personally there are some political views I may differ from Brian and even some theological views. I hold that though the Revelation is apocalyptical it is also prophetic as it states it is.(“Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy,” Rev 1:3) I also read it as it states, “v19. “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” I see that though as some see all has already happened, one thing remains, the Return of Jesus as the book states He will. (I do not see the day of Pentecost as the return of Jesus as it is evident in scripture that even after that day the Apostles looked forward to a literal day of Jesus’ return). I see that as in the OT at times there is a “Near/Far” theme. The example is that of the young girl (virgin) who is prophesied to give birth Isaiah (7:14) which is fulfilled in (2 Kings 16:9.) (I will not indulge in the “virgin” debate that claims that Matt was wrong and misused this “prophecy” I simply see that Matthew knew as most do, that a young girl most likely is a virgin…)

Being that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled, yet seems to still give more of a promise to be fully fulfilled later I see that this near far theme is carried out through out the bible. Though I see that almost every thing was fulfilled as Jesus stated it would be in that “generation” by 70AD, (Matthew 24:34) definitely gives a problem to those who only hold to the “future” view of Revelation as it then would make Jesus a liar!

Again, use wisdom and trust in the leading of the Holy Spirit. I found more just reading Revelation that lead me out of the “rapture” view. The deeper I looked at the scriptures that supposedly taught this view the less I saw it. (Though if pressed to have to believe the Rapture, I would be mid trib).

I see that we have a continuation of now until the New Creation comes. This earth and heaven are of the fallen creation. I do not subscribe to the “burn it all” idea, though I see that there will be a major meltdown to come… I see that as a purification of sin. The way I explain it is that God is not destroying this creation in the sense of annihilation as some teach. I see that as I will die and be raised again at the resurrection of the dead I will then be clothed in the imperishable and clothed in immortality. I will still be me. Likewise I see that this creation will rise as such and also be restored but even better… or as Jesus stated, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) I see that the Life is in the Son and in that we will rise to New Life in the New Creation as New created beings. The New Heavens and New Earth will be this one but in a much greater Glory. This is not denying that God will do some major things in the end of days rather it is fully acknowledging that there may be some terrible days ahead as God brings the two sided sword of justice. One side to set things right the other to punish those who have done wrong.

We must trust God first and foremost. Especially in that He knows His Word better than anyone. He promises to direct our path which to me means that as we read, there may be paths in the scripture we will never understand. It may be that we are not ready. Believe that God will teach you what He wants you to know. Often I have found God has different priorities than I do in what I think needs to be fixed in me. One point was that I was frustrated with a bad habit of swearing. I could control it most the time, yet I was shocked at times of what would flow out of my mouth! I would further feel condemned by it as I would read that fresh and salt water cannot flow from the same well… Yet, God dealt with me over my angry spirit. In that I found more control as he released me from the things that I would be angry about. (Rather God gave me tools to release anger before it worked its way in me too deeply).

Trust in Gods priorities.

Be blessed,
iggy