This Generation in Matthew 24:34

Matthew 24:34 is undoubtedly one of the least understood passages in the New Testament along with being the most poorly interpreted, especially by those with pre-tribulational perspectives (even C.S. Lewis called this verse the most embarassing in scriptures!).  Click on the link below to read about this passage from a biblical – theological perspective that exposes the pre-trib position as being based on bad interpretative principles.

This Generation

Reading Jonathan Edwards…painfully

Journal of  Reading Jonathan Edwards

16 April 2005

            Interesting that Isaac Watts is commenting on the revivals in America from London and is one of the editors of this work.  These men evaluated the New England revival as a wetting of Gideon’s fleece while the rest of the world was dry.  Their basis for considering that God was not at work in England (possibly Europe) was that there was a wall raised between them and God because of:

            A. Iniquities

            B. Coldness in Religion

            C. General carnality of spirit

            D. Pride

                        a. Perverse attitude of infidelity

                        b. Perverse attitude of degeneracy

                        c. Perverse attitude of apostasy

They attribute the revival success to a discovery of:

A. Sense of sin

B. Danger of God’s wrath

C. All sufficiency of Jesus

            a. Jesus relieves our spiritual wants

            b. Jesus relieves our spiritual distresses

D. Consent of souls to receive Him in offices of Grace–per Scripture

Furthermore, the Spirit honors preaching of doctrine that is neither antinomian or

Arminian but that is middle-ground.  The revival was not precipitated by calamity so that people were induced to turn to God from fear for their lives. 

            There is a strange reference in this introduction to “a woman” that is not clear. 

            Interesting that this introduction is well written and inclusive of plenty of excellent analysis of revival conditions. 

17 April 2005

            According to Edwards, the people that experienced revival were relatively free from error or from sectarian divisions or opinions and were not under the evil influence of immigrants.  They were, by and large, sober, orderly and good folk.  They exercised their religion in good order under the teaching of pure doctrine.  They had no divisions or quarrels in church and well managed their own church government.  It certainly makes one wonder why they would need to be “awakened.”

            Overall, the Northampton people were rational and intelligent and they revered their pastors.  They were the beneficiaries of long-term pastorates.  Edwards makes special note of their attention to evangelizing the young people.

18 April 2005

Edwards describes recent incidents of profligacy and lack of family government.

Edwards’ response to these ills is to preach topical sermons against the real evils in the town.  Interesting that Edwards is viewed as a great preacher by many who consider that expository preaching is the only proper preaching…certainly was not Edwards’ style.

19 April 2005

            Description of a woman – a distressed young woman – who dies in peace of God’s mercy.  The result is a profound solemnity among the town’s young people.  The young people established into worship groups.  An elderly person dies under unusual circumstances…the details of which are not given.

            Again, Edwards practices topical preaching as he inveighs against the threat of Arminianism that would corrupt people.  He preaches on justification by faith alone.  Interesting that his hatred of Arminianism is contrary to the position of Watts and the other editors who promoted a middle ground approach.

20 April 2005

            Awakening comes about because of the conversion of a young woman of bad reputation.  Edwards admits to having had no relationship with her until after she came to describe her conversion to him.  Is it safe to conclude that the awakening had nothing to do with his Calvinistic harshness toward Arminianism and that God broke through because of the Arminian influence he detested?  Edwards admits that his attitude toward the young woman’s testimony was that it would lead others to rationalize worldliness.  The opposite condition actually came about.  Was Edwards a control freak?

            Apparently the outcome of the “awakening” was that people set aside their worldly pursuits and were concerned to “fly from the wrath to come.”  A number of astonishing conversions took place.  People met in house meetings and public worship was bent toward holiness and the “beauty of holiness.”  Grace was drawn forth and hearts were uplifted to the excellency (sic) and dying love of Jesus Christ.

21 April 2005

            Edwards proceeds with a description of the spread of the revival into the nearby towns of Suffeld, Deerfield, Green River and beyond.  He contends that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not unique and was not contrived and lists Guildford and Mansfield, Tolland and Hebron and Bolton, etc., as among the venues that were visited by the Holy Spirit.

22 April 2005

Edwards’ analysis of the revival in 1735 shows that over 300 people were converted.  He declares it to be an “extraordinary dispensation of Providence; God has… gone out of His usual and ordinary way.”  The revival is described as being universal in scope and not confined to age group or gender or race.  Interesting that Edwards describes that the new converts are admitted to be able to take communion with the church but there is no mention of baptism either after conversion or in relation to communion.  Was the sacrament/ordinance of baptism something of which Edwards was ashamed to speak or was he disobedient to God’s Word in this matter?  How could a church be blessed with great revival and be blatantly disobedient in essential practice?

23 April 2005

            Edwards reiterates (his writing style is cumbersome and tedious because of his penchant for overstatement and rehashing issues! Comes from having been raised on Horace instead of Caesar!) his analysis of the extraordinary dispensation of the Holy Spirit’s awakening and regenerating influences.  Very important semantic pivot here.  Why is it necessary for Edwards to distinguish between awakening and regenerating?  Sheds light on what is meant by Great Awakening.  “Awakening” apparently does not mean salvation in a Baptist sense of the word “salvation.”  Edwards seems to view awakening as the influence of the Holy Spirit upon people to examine themselves.  This examination may not lead to regeneration.  Edwards reveals that he is a strict Calvinist who believes in the blasphemous doctrine that Calvin invented that the Holy Spirit can convict the reprobate of sin and deceive them into believing that they may be regenerated…even though the Holy Spirit knows beforehand that regeneration will not happen.

            Interesting that Edwards had been reticent to write about his experiences and those of others in the area in regard to the awakening.

24 April 2005

            In section 2, Edwards begins to describe the various ways that people experience conversion.  Actually, the latter statement is a Baptist filter of what Edwards says.  People are “wrought upon.”  This statement is, of course, in keeping with Calvin’s hideous doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit.  Persons that are wrought upon may be reprobate and the Holy Spirit is merely toying with them.  The awakened that Edwards describes are awakened to:

                        A. Sense of their miserable condition by nature

                                    Danger of 2nd death that is imminent

                                    Gradual and Sudden work

                        B. Sense of being religious but lost

The effects on the awakened were to:

                        A. Quit sinful practices

                        B. Begin to work to gain salvation by

                                    1. Reading

                                    2. Prayer

                                    3. Meditation

                                    4. Ordinances

                                    5. Private conferences (presumably with Edwards)

In their terror of damnation, it is noticeable that Edwards points them to the church and to a works based salvation instead of justification by the free gift of salvation that is found in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God.

25 April 2005

            Edwards takes special note of melancholy people and describes them as being easily twisted by the devil, unstable in their fears, and unable to relax and enjoy salvation.  He criticizes them as unstable because of their need to feel conviction of sin.

Edwards’ idea of the warfare in spiritual terms was rather strange.  He seemed to think that he was able to tell where Satan was at work directly.  Interesting that a man of such great erudition was so pathetically ignorant of rudimentary aspects of biblical teaching on spiritual warfare.  He fails to mention demons but is consumed with knowing what Satan is up to.  Appears to be extreme spiritual pride on the part of Edwards that he thought he was battling with the enemy of Jesus without heeding the precautions of Jude 9.  Interesting that Edwards knows exactly when the Holy Spirit withdrew.  His description points toward a victory on the part of Satan.  The people described in this section are a snapshot of Edwards’ sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. 

            Edwards gives an interesting description of those he claims have prevailed against sin as being without confidence in themselves.  Having been wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, they are shown their “exceeding wickedness and guiltiness in his sight.”  Since the terms “lost” and “saved” as Baptists understand them don’t apply to Edwards’ Calvinist frame of reference, it is difficult to know what sort of people the Holy Spirit is dealing with.  If saved (whatever that means—beginning to wonder if I may just be reprobate and have been deceived by the Holy Spirit…or is it Satan that deceives people…gosh, I guess I will know for sure when I am burning in HELL!!), then this ministry of the Holy Spirit sure seems to be an unbiblical description of the Comforter.  If lost, well, never mind…the Calvinist lost are reprobate.  Who can sort out all of this confusing Calvinistic nonsense?

26 April 2005

            Well, good news!  Here is a better description of the descent into spiritual terrorism as administered by Edwards.  Sinners in God’s angry hands find that:

                        1. Awakening begins

                        2. Outward sinfulness is examined

                        3. “Heart-sins” are examined

                                    a. Corruption of nature

                                    b. Enmity with God

                                    c. Pride in heart

                                    d. Stubborn, obstinate will

Some who try to rely on their regret of and confession of sin as atonement only obtain greater distance from God.  I have no idea what that means and what standard is being used to measure the “distance” from God.  Fear of dying increases and they try harder but rebellion sets in and some are blasphemous.  There is no explanation of what Edwards means by the word “blasphemous.”  If the Spirit of God does not abandon them (Edwards seems to know where the Spirit of God is at all times and doesn’t find it outside his own sphere of approval very often.) and they remain under conviction, they are afraid of having committed the unpardonable sin.  Edwards does not explain what the unpardonable sin is (The Unpardonable Sin is substituting oneself for the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy must be biblically defined, not defined by modern commentarians or rationalists.).

            Some put off coming to Christ because they are too wicked and try to better themselves.  They are beaten down and eventually humbled to accept their helplessness and become open to Christ and the gospel.  They seek salvation and their condition is that they are:

                        1. Ignorant of themselves

                        2. Insensitive to their blindness

                        3. Unaware of their impotence toward spiritual things

                        4. Incapable of works of grace

And they are insensitive to:

                        1. Having no love for God

                        2. Having no holy attitudes

                        3. Being dead in sin

So, per Edwards, they vainly try to wash away their own sins…interesting thing to do for someone who is insensitive to being dead in sin. Where does the awareness of sin come from if he is unaware of sin?

            Now Edwards shifts his definition of “awakening” from the conviction of the Holy Spirit on anyone regardless of decreed status from God, to one who is being awakened to salvation that has been previously decreed.  Awakening, encouragement, fear of God and hope are seen as being at odds with self-flattery and despondence.  At last, something to think about besides all this disgusting drudgery of spiritual terrorism.  Here is where the great line that Marilla speaks to Anne (of Green Gables) comes from when Anne says that she is in the depths of despair and asks if Marilla has ever been in the depths of despair.  Marilla says, “No. To despair is to turn your back on God.”  Despondency is un-Christian in Edwards’ church.

            Edwards makes the point that God is just in rejecting natural men (Romans 3:19).  Of course, he never explains, as Calvinists never do, how the justice of God is that part of Him that is responsible for forgiveness of sin (1 John 1:9).

            Edwards’ attitude toward the unregenerate that they are not heard by God in their prayers and petitions is nonsense that he has made up (or derived from Calvin) since it fails to account for God’s dealing with Cornelius in Acts 10:1-48.

27 April 2005

            Edwards seems pretty hung up on the common person’s inability to understand what he perceives is really happening to them.  Edwards lists things that converts declare as having led them to awakening. 

                        Mercy 

                        Love

                        Grace

                        Blood

                        Death

                        Text of Scripture

                        Forgiveness of Sins

                        Faithfulness

                        Guilt

                        Fears of Wrath

The convert’s affections are moved to laughter, tears, weeping, crying out.  Many doubt their salvation.  Satan is able to work effectively with those who have no assurance or had assurance and are now weakened.  Edwards appears to fear declaring a sinner to be saved because he is not able to know if God elected them and truly implanted grace.  Awakening brings an awareness of the great things of religion.  It also brings to mind great doctrines of the Bible.  It seems rather odd that someone who had no intention of writing about all these things that happened has gone to such enormous lengths to catalog them all.  Edwards seems to imply that real conversions are the dramatic ones as opposed to those that are pastoral.  Seems that he was more enamored with the spirit of awakening than with the Spirit of God. He is also frightfully ignorant of the biblical definition of “elect” as servant or those wh are tried!

28 April 2005

Edwards outlines the common practices of converts as being:

                        1. Fasting

                        2. Fascination with nature                     

                        3. Annihilating self

                        4. Praising God

                        5. Love of the Bible

                                    a. Psalms

                                    b. Isaiah

                        6. Sensing majesty of God

                        7.Understanding doctrine

Edwards reiterates manifestations of conversion.  Renewal comes from testimony and brings with it a sense of vileness and unworthiness in the believer.  Sounds like someone should have been reading Romans 8 to these people.

29 April 2005

            Edwards denies that people have seen any visions but that their imaginations are largely effected by their thoughts and ideas.  Apparently there were criticisms that Edwards was not working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and he denies the accusation.  Edwards recounts the story of a young woman who starves herself to death.  The narrative is suspicious and sounds like demonic forces were at work that Edwards did not disturb.

            Chilling story of a 4 year old child who can hardly be described as anything other than demon possessed and the stupidity of the parents and Edwards in dealing with her.  Phebe Bartlet’s sudden change in behavior and desire to have “three come to me” is interpreted by Edwards as deep sense of the Holy Spirit leading her.  The child is described as living in constant terror and performing rituals that indicate that she was obsessive-compulsive = demonized.

30 April 2005

Edwards’ account definitely shifts to demonic activity as he describes the suicide of a melancholy man.  The impact of the man cutting his own throat is that Edwards concludes that Satan was loosed upon them at the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit.  Many others in the town were terrorized by demons that tried to influence them to commit suicide. 

1 May 2005

Cooper introduces the Distinguishing Marks section. 

Edwards likens his experience with that of the Pentecostal participants and claims that, since counterfeits are introduced into the world by the devil to establish false religion and revival, then there must be rules for determining the true marks of God’s spirit against the false.  The Scripture is the true guide for telling what the marks are.

Edwards’ rationalizations are amazing: one cannot argue that extreme measures reflect against events being from the Holy Spirit.  Even if mostly children are impacted (mitigates against his claim that the revival was universal) and the modus operandi appears to have been extreme applications of guilt and terror, that’s not grounds for criticism.  After all, unusual things happened at Pentecost.  So, physical phenomenon in the bodies of persons doesn’t prove anything since the Bible doesn’t specifically say anything about these conditions.  Never mind that a number of the conditions described are directly analogous to conditions shown in scriptures to be of demonic influence.

2 May 2005

The influence on person’s minds by the Holy Spirit causes commotion and moral influence.  What does that mean?

Edwards’ use of Scripture to justify his position that his awakening is a manifestation of the coming of the kingdom leads him to strip away the context of such verses as Luke 17:24.

Hopefully the ecstasies that are aroused are not the same as that phrase would imply in modern parlance.

The Holy Spirit’s influence is passed on to others by example…good observation.

Just because people behave in a manner that is corrupt and opprobrious does not prove that the Holy Spirit was not poured out on them…after all, zeal is dangerous since good zeal can turn into bad zeal.

Satan’s delusions being mixed with the work does not discredit the Holy Spirit’s movement…after all, Jannes and Jambres did false miracles.  What does that mean??

Just because some fall away and do not persevere does not discount the validity of the others–witness Judas.

It’s not fair to say that Edwards (according to him) has induced fear into the people and terrorized them with his position and capacity as spiritual leader so that he could get results such as he did.  Fear, dread, terror and the power of the pulpit must be combined to bring people under legal conviction.  Sounds like justification of unsound pastoral ministry…or spiritual terrorism.

3 May 2005

Marks section 2

Edwards seems ready to defend the simple gospel of confessing Jesus and then switches to describing the complicating factors of works that he deems important in their confession.  They must know and fully understand particulars and their affections must be neurotically retuned as his have been in his contemplation of guilt and worthlessness—ALL of this makes for salvation.

Edwards makes a severe misstep in positing that being anti-Satan can only be interpreted as the Holy Spirit in operation.  Jesus allows that mere morality is good for this sort of work (salt without savor is effective at suppressing dust on the road—worldly sin) but the agents of traditional morality are sons of hell themselves; Pharisees.

4 May 2005

            Edwards makes a good point that the Holy Spirit is interested in a true regard for the scriptures.  That the Bible should be regarded as divine should be denied by all Christians.  Edwards is close to blasphemy.  Unless he is just using “divine” as shorthand for divinely inspired.  Not likely that Edwards used any shorthand.

            Well observed that truth and error are at war.  Simplistic attitude tward Satan’s style of maintaining deception.

            Good description of godly love—especially that charity is humble.

            Edwards concludes that the Holy Spirit has been poured out in the awakening.

Jonah

Jonah

An original translation by David Price

 

Jonah 1

1. There came a time in the history of Israel when the Word of the Lord made Himself known unto the son of Amitay, who was the prophet, Jonah. This is what the Word said to him:

2. “Get your things together, Jonah, and get going toward the great city Nineveh.  When you arrive there you will proclaim my message, pronounce my word upon her because her wickedness has risen through the heavens and is right in front of me.”

3. But, instead of following the Word, Jonah got his things together and headed out toward Tarshish which was on the other side of the Great Sea from Nineveh. He first went away from Nineveh as far as Joppa and there he found a small ship that would sell him a bunk on their voyage toward Tarshish. So he paid the fare and climbed down into the tiny berth and sailed away with the men toward Tarshish, with their backs to Nineveh.

4. Somewhere along the way, the Lord Himself blasted the sea with a powerful wind and stirred up a hurricane. The small ship was tossed about by the terrible storm until it seemed as though she would be broken to pieces.

5. All of the sailors were terrified and helpless to bring their ship under control. They began to pray and shout to their gods and shouted out to the god of the sea. They also started throwing their cargo overboard to try and appease the gods and to make the small ship lighter. But Jonah, who knew that there was no sea god, decided to find himself a comfortable place in the back of the boat where he could bed down during the brief calm that was coming. In a few moments, he was fast asleep.

6. When the ship’s captain found out that Jonah was napping below decks, he could hardly believe it. When he found Jonah, the captain shook him and called his name, “Jonah. Jonah! What are you doing? How can you be the only one sleeping? Get yourself up and do what we are all doing. Cry out to your god and ask for help. Perhaps he will be considerate and save us from death, from perishing in the sea!”

7. Meanwhile, all the others on board got together to decide what to do when the calm was over and the other side of the storm came over them. Someone shouted more loudly than the rest, “Come on, let’s draw straws and find out on whose account this disaster is happening to us.” When the captain came back on deck with Jonah, they drew straws and Jonah had the short straw.

8. Everyone stared at the short straw in Jonah’s hand for a moment. The captain finally began to ask him questions, one right after the other: “Tell us why this harm has come upon us.” “What sort of business are you in? What is your trade?” “Where do you come from?” “Who are your people?” “What land are you from?”

9. Jonah held up his hand. “Hebrew.” Everyone stared at the short straw in his hand as he said, ” I am Hebrew, from the land of the Hebrews, the people who crossed over the sea upon the dry land by the hand of God. I am one of those who fear the Lord, the God of the heavens. He is the Creator; It is He who has made the sea and it is He who has made the dry land. The sea does as he commands and obeys his will.

10. When they heard the words of Jonah, every man was gripped with fear as they remembered that he had told them before that he was running away from the presence of  the Lord. “What is this that you have done to us?” they exclaimed in one voice. “How could you bring this disaster upon us?”

   11) No one spoke for a short time. The boat began to move about as the waves began to swell again. The captain looked out to sea and then looked at Jonah. “What can we do unto you that will make him be quiet? The sea is starting to walk and toss again and the ship cannot bear up under the crushing waves.”

   12) And Jonah said to the men, “You must lift me up and toss me overboard. Throw me down into the sea and he will be quiet, you will be safe. I know this is true because I know that this tempest is sent against you on my account.”

   13) Without a word, the men ran to their oars and began to pull as hard as they could toward the shoreline that was still visible on the horizon. They rowed until they were exhausted and weak but the sea was tossing them back two lengths for every ship’s length they gained.

    14) Finally, they succumbed to their fears and impotence and they cried out to the Lord as they lifted Jonah up to the side of the ship, “O Lord, we don’t want to die here because of the life of this man. We beg that you will not let us perish and that you will not hold us to account for the blood of this innocent man. We are trusting in the words of this man that you have done this thing, O Lord!”

    15) So they lifted Jonah and cast him down into the sea. Immediately, the sea became calm and was not raging against them as it had been.

  16) When the men reached the shore, they were still overwhelmed by the things that had happened and by the fear of the Lord that was unshakeable. They got together and made sacrifices and made promises and vows to do things that were good.

Jonah 2

 

1 Now the Lord chose a huge fish that could swallow up Jonah and that is how Jonah came to be in the belly of the fish for three days and for three nights.

2 While he was inside the fish, Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God and this is what he said:

3          I called out unto the Lord from within my time of trouble

                        and he listened to me;

            From the very depths of Hell I hailed you.

                        You heard my cry for Help,

4          Since it was you who cast me down

                        into the depths,

                        into the heart of the sea;

                        (The flood of waters would not let me go.)

            all of your crashing waves

            and all of your rolling waves

                        washed over me.

5          That’s when I heard myself say,            

            “Even though I cannot be in your presence right now,

            I will be able to feast my eyes on your Holy Temple again.”

6          Unto the depths of my soul itself,

                        the waters surrounded me;

            In the heart of the great deep,

                        is where I drowned,

                            pressed to my brow,

                            the seaweed wound.

7          To the place where the mountains rest,

                        I sank that low;

            The doors in the lowest parts of the earth,

                        were closed upon me

                            by an eternal hand.

            But before my life slipped forever away,

                        You raised me up,

                            O Lord my God!

8          When my soul was shrouded within me,

                        I remembered the Lord;

            And I sent to your Holy Temple,

                        the offering of my prayer.

9 There are many who forsake kindness.

            The cause of this?

            Being all too ready to depend on lies.

10 But as for me?

            I will be singing God’s praises,

            putting my tongue to good use,

               as I get ready to sacrifice and

               as I prepare to pay my vows:

            There is Salvation in the Lord!

11 So the Lord directed the fish and made him throw up at just the right place; and Jonah found himself on dry ground.

Jonah 3

1 And that is where Jonah was when the Word of the Lord found him the second time and began to say to him,

2 “Get your things together, Jonah, and get going toward the great city Nineveh.  When you arrive there you will proclaim my message, preach unto her the sermon which I have been telling you.

3  So Jonah pulled himself together and began walking toward Nineveh following after the Word of the Lord.  Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city unto the gods.  It is questionable whether someone could walk from one end of it to the other in three days.

4  Now Jonah waited until he had come into the city about a days walk and then he cried out and said, “Nineveh has 40 days before it will be overthrown.”

5  And all the people of Nineveh trusted God and they declared a fast and put on sackcloth. All of them, from the greatest to the least of them, put on sackcloth.

6  When the word going around the city came to the king’s attention, he rose up from his throne and laid aside his royal robes. Then the king covered himself from head to toe in sackcloth and sat down in an ash pit to fast with his people.

7  When he had everyone that he needed with him at the ash pit, he spoke the following words to his nobles so that they would tell all the people, “People of Nineveh – Do not eat or drink any food or water, do not let your animals ear or drink and take your cattle and sheep out of the pastures.”

8  “Sackcloth is all that we will wear and the animals shall wear the same.  Make as much noise as you can and cry out to God. Every man is to turn away from evil and from the cruel things you do and the places you go.”

9  “Who knows whether God will pity us and look at us again so that harm will be turned away from us. Perhaps His burning anger will not consume us so that we all perish.”

10  So God saw all that they did and how they truly turned away from the path of destruction.  And God felt sorry for them because of the panic and distress that came from the proclamation He had made against them. He did not destroy them as He had declared He would.

Jonah 4

1  But Jonah was ill and distressed beyond measure, fuming and fretting at the outcome.

2  So he prayed unto the Lord and kept saying to Him:

O Lord,

O Lord,

O Lord,

“I knew you would do this when I was still at home.  Wasn’t that what I said?  That was why I ran away to Tarshish, because I knew that, of all things, You and You alone are a gracious and compassionate God.  You are slow to get angry and full of loving kindness – even pitying those who are miserable and distressed.”

3  “And now, O Lord, I pray that you will take my life from me so that some good will come from my death; since I prefer death to life.”

4  And the Lord said, “How good of you to be so angry for Me!”

5  So Jonah walked out and left the city and camped out on the east side of the city. He made for himself a shed and sat in the scanty shade it gave so that he could watch the show of what the Lord was going to do to the city.

6  So the Lord God chose to make a gourd to climb up over Jonah’s head to give more shade to his head. And Jonah was relieved from his distress and rejoiced over the great blessing of the gourd plant.

7  Then God chose a worm to work at eating away the inside of the gourd until the dawn of the next morning. So the worm destroyed the gourd and it withered away to nothing. 

8  And so it was when the sun rose, God made the east wind particularly hot.  Jonah was overheated by the blazing sun.  Jonah felt faint as he prayed that he preferred to die.  Over and over he kept saying, “Death! Death! I would be better off dead!”

9  And God said unto Jonah, “Is it a good thing that you are angry about the gourd?” and Jonah said “I have a right to be angry, even if it kills me!”

10  And the Lord said, “You have loving kindness toward a gourd, which you did nothing to bring about and in no way caused it to grow. A gourd, mind you, which I made to last from one night to the next without any help from you. Should not I especially have pity upon Nineveh, that great city in which there are many more than 120,000 men who do not know their right hand from their left hand, along with many cattle?

Doctrine of Christ

Doctrine of Christ

I. Important elements:

A. Jesus is God.  Hebrews 1:8

                        1. Jesus is not a god.  John 10:30  He is united with the Father.

2. Jesus is not the only person of the Triune God  John 20:21-22  He is sent from the Father and baptized the church with the Holy Ghost.

3. Jesus is not an angel.  Hebrews 1: 4-5  He is greater than angels.

4. Jesus is eternal.  Hebrews 7: 16-17, Colossians 1:17  He is. Therefore, He is always alive.

5. Jesus is the creator.  Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16 As God, he made everything.

6. Jesus is God’s only begotten Son.  Acts 13:33, John 3:16  He is begotten, not made, so that the essence of God is the same.

7. Jesus is the Image of God  Genesis 1:26, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:15  He is the agent of an unfailing relationship with God.

B. Jesus is Man.  I Corinthians 15: 21-23

1. Jesus had a human mother.  Luke 2:16-21, Matthew 13:55  His flesh and blood are human.

2. Jesus did things that men do.  Hebrews 4:15

            a. He ate and drank  Matthew 11:19

            b. He slept.  Mark 4:38

            c. He wept.  John 11:38

            d. He forgave.  Luke 7:48

            e. He learned.  Hebrews 5:8, Luke 2:40

            f. He was angry. Matthew 21: 12-13

            g. He loved.  John 21:20

3. Jesus did not do one thing that all mankind does, He did not sin.  Hebrews 4:15.  His standing with God was never compromised.

4. Jesus died a physical death.  John 19:33  His spirit departed from His body.  Luke 23:46

5. Jesus was raised from the dead.  John 20:9

            a. by the Spirit  Romans 8:11

            b. by the Father  Acts 13:33

            c. by Himself  John 10:18

            C. Jesus was sent to save sinful men.  John 3:16, 10:15

1. All have sinned.  Jeremiah 2:29, Romans 3:23  Our standing with God was and is compromised.

2. Sinners will be judged.  Romans 1:32  There is no excusing mankind.

3. Jesus died for all mankind.  Romans 5:6-8  All sinners are included in this formula.

4. Jesus provides an army in which mankind can enlist against the agents of condemnation.  Esther, Hebrews 2:10, 1 John 4:17, 2 Peter 2:9, Romans 8:1, John 8:1-11. Whosoever will may come.  John 3:16.

II. Less important elements.

            A. Atonement.  It is not possible to describe exactly how God has accomplished

atonement for sins.  It is presumptuous of mankind to postulate that God had a single-minded, man-centered perspective in redeeming mankind.  Such an attitude is put forth by sinful man with a sinner’s mindset and a need base engendered by sin (Jude 15).  If Jesus’ purpose in coming was primarily to validate the decrees of God (Matthew 5:17-18), then it is possible that He could have done so without providing salvation for sinners.  This condition would have been the completion of I. C. 2. above (Sinners will be judged), since a righteous God would leave no question as to the validity of His decrees; i.e., they are not arbitrarily generated.  This perspective points toward the fact that the punishment for sin that God prescribed in the eternal realm was one that He knew He would personally suffer when He was “found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:7).  Salvation, then, is contingent on the validation of God’s righteousness.

            B. Descent into Hell.  If Jesus “led captivity captive,” then the implication is that He went to where captivity was being held.  A righteous God would leave no excuse for sinful mankind to hide behind (Genesis 3:8-10) nor would He leave any place unexplored where a man could hide from Him (Psalms 139:7-8).  Certainly the above assertion follows logically if Jesus is prophet (John 4:19).  The perfect prophet would not withhold the message from anyone.

Plotinus: rambling thoughts on absoluteness

Plotinus: rambling thoughts about philosophy

Problems with the little triangle trick at the beginning:

1) In statement #1, it is not necessarily the case that evil is excluded by perfect love and goodness.

2) In statement #3, it remains to be established by what means God intends to destroy evil.

3) In statement #4, there is no definition for the “power” in the word “powerful.”

4) Again, statement #6 is totally dependent upon knowing that God intends to destroy evil by force. Does revelation bear this out? Does John 3:16 attest to the truth of this position? Does any scripture? Does any symbolic picture point to this as God’s modus operandi? What does it mean that God is long suffering?

Plotinus posits a wall at the end of the universe, on the other side of which, there is nothing. That nothing, is evil and it has the negative “uncapacity” to draw one away from the goodness that is describable as the oneness or unity that exists in opposition to the dissemination that is nothing. However, the wall at the edge of the universe is not very high and it is possible for one to visit it (in imagination) and look over at the nothingness. When this happens, the wall must move to the outer reaches of vision and expands the range of goodness since something existing has entered it or, at least, noticed that the back side of the wall faces the nothingness. One problem with this idea is that one can imagine an infinite egress that should be as impossible as an infinite regress. Another problem with it is that the idea itself was formed in the mind of a man (or possibly a being greater than man) and the totality of the system represented proceeded forth from what was already in existence. Therefore, the nothingness has to have positive reality as its basis and cannot be fully unreal.

Plotinus, then, illustrates for us the flaw in the Platonic model of reality in that Plato’s system lacks a realistic understanding of the “barrier” between Ideal and Material. If the Ideal has any relationship to the Material at all (as seen above), then the Ideal must either permit change or it can be described as a perpetual motion machine and all that is real takes place in the Material realm where change is possible. If one wishes to posit that some message is periodically sent from the Ideal world to the Material and that it causes things to be rearranged according to the “will” of the occupants of the Ideal realm, then that person would be mistaken since the interjection of the “message” would merely be a part of the function of the perpetual motion machine and it would have no meaning. That is not to say that it would have no impact on the Material realm, but its impact would be based on its causal interaction rather than its purposive nature. In this model, there could be no definitive will of God but only an interpretive will, i.e., the occupants of the Material realm would define the will of God on the basis of the Material system. Nothing in the Ideal realm could be viewed as having any moral force, merely the force of unchanging power. Therefore, the only ideal in the universe would be power. So spoke Nietzsche.

The problem with Augustinian Idealism is that it suffers from the same weakness as described above. Where is the barrier between the Ideal and the Material? If Augustine denies the evil condition of the Material realm in words, he affirms his belief that it is evil by default. If God’s thoughts are all pure and good and it is incumbent upon us to think God’s thoughts, how is this possible on this side of the barrier? In order for one to exist without being subject to a “malfunction,” one must be in total and continuous communion with the mind of God. But how is this possible unless one is God? In other words, Augustine ignores the barrier and constructs a dualistic system that parallels Plato’s but includes a theodicy, a disclaimer that exempts God from responsibility for evil. Evil, to Augustine, becomes that force that filters  messages from the Ideal realm and twists them. By locating evil in the will of man, he indicates that the perpetual motion machine in the Ideal realm is fully functional but that it is not hermetic and transmits some of its substance into the material world via a messenger. This messenger can be pictured as light that focuses itself onto the “screen” of the mind of man. Man’s evil will distorts or disrupts the light and the result is bad behavior or sin. If one is free from his evil will, then the messages will be free from distortion and the man can be restored to full function. (Notice that this idealism does not affirm the complete innocence of Adam or Eve and impugns God’s declaration that His work of creation is Good!) Thus, the best end of man is to suffer a spiritual lobotomy and destroy his will in order to achieve enlightenment. This condition may seem to be ideal but how, then, can man continue to function as a being created in God’s image without a will? Augustine sneaks the inherent evil of the Material realm in by the back door because he attaches the will of man to his animal nature, thus saving the rational nature from being inherently tainted unless one gives himself up completely to self-absorption. Again, a large difficulty with this position is in viewing evil as good that has malfunctioned since, 1) how can good cease to function properly and 2) how can Augustine ignore the fact that evil is evil because of intention rather than consequence. A misapplication of fire such as setting a backfire without calculating the effects of the wind is not evil even though the results may be unprecedented in their destructive character. The use of a magnifying glass by a small boy to burn his sister’s doll is an evil that, though insignificant in its results, cannot be ignored without placing the boy in spiritual jeopardy. Finally, where does Augustine obtain the scriptural precedent for his model of “enlightenment?” Is there any place that points toward the possibility of man having a fully illuminated mind (outside of gnostic doctrine)? And, if one achieves this status, what is the function of faith?

Hindu Pessimism extends the Idealistic picture along Manichaean lines. The Ideal world exists as a perpetual motion machine but there are conduits of enlightenment that extend to every being. Virtually all of these conduits allow flow from the Ideal world into a being and the result is similar to light attaching itself to a flame or filament that is excited by electricity. The light is Ideal substance and lends itself to the Material but is not impacted by the condition of the Material. So there is no suffering in the Ideal realm and the portion of the Ideal that is “resident” in the Material world cannot experience suffering even though the being to which it is attached may be in agony. This condition is reasonable since the Ideal is in perpetual motion and has no consciousness or moral understanding and cannot be implicated in such conditions of the Material realm. The adjustment that Hindus make on the Platonic Model is that they allow, under certain circumstances, for movement in both directions in the conduit. When a being has reached a state of liberation from the material by 1)devotion to a deity, 2)works: following an ancient ritual, 3)knowledge: achieving true doctrine, then that being will move through the conduit into the Ideal realm and be absorbed. All of which is a far cry from the original Hebrew doctrine of a calling to serve that perfectly reflects the creator God.

Nihilism totally accepts the perpetual motion machine but establishes that it is all that there is and there is no meaning coming from it, no messages generated by it, no causal relationships on account of it; it is and existence is its own justification. The cardinal difficulty with this position is that lack of meaning (or reasoning, or rationality, or mind, etc.) is universal and the proponents of this doctrine deny their own position by acknowledging the validity of reasoning in any sense. For example, the use of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that nihilism is valid cannot be true for either their conclusion is invalidated by the ground of their argument or by its consequent.

Theistic finitism is, essentially, not worth discussing since we have no concept as to whether God is finite or not. If he is, then our finite concept of finitude still cannot explain God’s mode of existence. In addition, we don’t know what God knows nor how he knows it. Neither do we know what power is nor to what degree God uses it; whether it is more truly described as his authority or the perfect force of his love. We cannot even, when contemplating Jesus, the God/Man, understand how it is possible for him, who set aside his heavenly glory, to lay down his life and take it back up again. That he did so is true and we cling to this fact in faith and hope but we understand none of it since it is beyond our frame of reference. A guitar may play the melody line of an orchestral piece but it cannot be constrained to sound like a tuba and a piccolo and a bass drum simultaneously.

How can an Open Theist Pray?

Open Theist Prayer

Sequence of events

1. Open Theist decides to pray

…unprompted by the indwelling Holy Spirit because that would mean that God knows   the future and what He wants the Open Theist to pray about.

2. Open Theist addresses God to get His attention

…which would demand the use of some set formula that God would recognize as coming from a petitioner and placing Him on alert to pay attention.

3. Open Theist begins to tell God the details about which he is going to pray

…this step is important since God does not know the future from the point of view of the petitioner and, therefore, has not “looked ahead” to gain detailed information about the prayer that is forthcoming. 

4. Open Theist prays in order to exercise his “authentic power to influence things”[1] in the spiritual realm

…and God is instructed in areas where He is deliberately ignorant by creatures that are inevitably ignorant to establish what may blend in with His desires.

Responses to above

1. This idea stands against the theological virtue of Hope, especially as outlined in Romans 8: 22-28.

2. Perhaps God is too busy counting hairs and checking on sparrows (Matthew 10:29-30) to pay attention to His children.  Oops, sorry, I read ahead to verse 31 and discovered that God is continuously aware of me and my circumstances.

3. This point can only pertain to a petitioner who is going to ask God for something that is completely isolated from his own set of needs since the Bible says that “…your Father knows what things you need before you ask Him.” Matthew 6:8.  Of course, it seems practically impossible to maintain that one would pray for something and have no personal need involved in the prayer.  Isn’t it fundamental that prayer expects God to respond and that expectation is based on personal relationship, not on disinterested advice offered to the manager of the universe?  This sort of prayer seems to be best described as analogous to the suggestion box. 

However, it may be that the Open Theist can “trick” God by relying on the Holy Spirit to prompt him (see #1).  Now he is able to discuss his personal needs with God and, having gained God’s attention, he can sneak in his petitions about the things that are unrelated to his personal needs.  The difficulty at this point would be that the Open Theist would have to shift into “scientific mode” in order to deal with God who is not using His exhaustive foreknowledge.  The Open Theist could not merely say, “Father I ask that you help Melody to gain acceptance in nursing school.”  Such a prayer would presume that God understood the details of the future thoughts of the petitioner before they were uttered.  God in his vast (but not quite exhaustive) knowledge, may know of 200 women named Melody who are trying to get into nursing school.  Should He presume to know which of those is the one to whom the Open Theist is referring?    The burden of exhaustive identification is placed on the Open Theist so that God will be able to sort out His own will regarding the subject of the petition.  If the Open Theist objects that God would know to whom he refers without exhaustive explanation, then he would be appealing to Matthew 6:8 or Matthew 10:31 or some other biblical passage that explains God’s knowledge in relational terms.  The Open Theist who is true to his philosophy of prayer is constrained to thoroughly identify the person for whom he brings a petition in exacting detail that depends upon past experience and cannot depend on personal relationship.  “Father, there was a young lady in Texas Steakhouse on Capital Blvd. (not the one close to the beltline) in Raleigh, North Carolina, whose name was Melody and she served us on the night of December 3, 2004 (according to the time and dating system that is used in the United States of America which is the country that occupies the majority of the land mass between the oceans that we call the Atlantic and the Pacific…) when we had dinner with Jim and Amy and Dwayne and Colleen and I asked her if there was anything that we could pray about in her life and she asked us to pray about her entrance to nursing school. Since you have exhaustive knowledge of the past, you should know the person to whom I am referring.  However, since You do not have exhaustive knowledge of the future and have not yet factored what impact her future actions may have on Your plan, then we cannot pray that You will help her gain entrance to nursing school but can only pray that You will help her to be content with the present.”  Is this not an exercise in futility?

4. Proverbs 3: 1-10.  Influence with God appears to come from submission to the law and the commandments, along with forsaking one’s own ideas of how things are to be.  If so, then prayer is repeating God’s thoughts to Him. 

John 14:12-18.   Jesus establishes the basis of answered prayer in relationship to Him.  It even appears that there is no petition that is not initiated and completed by God.

Conclusion: The Open Theist’s concept of prayer is amazingly complex and would have to follow some very strict rules to be certain that one is getting God’s attention.  In addition, the Open Theist’s position on prayer seems to have no need for Jesus or the Holy Spirit. 

Boyd is mistaken when he derogates the common petitioners attitude to prayer as being something impossible to evoke passion.  Boyd’s focus on passionate prayer and disdain for “sheer obedience”[2] in prayer is problematic in that it points toward a God who can be deceived by passion, as though He were a man.  Rather, God has established that obedience is synonymous with love and not passion; the former being impossible without His own performing it (Isaiah 59) and the latter being judged by the standards of men (2 Peter 2:18).

---

[1]Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 96.

[2] Ibid, 95.

Journal on Mere Christianity

Journal of Reflections from a Reading of Mere Christianity
David Price

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. New York: Macmillan, 1960 (3rd printing, 1963).

28 August 2004
Preface
I thought it might be interesting to compare the preface of this edition to that in my copy of The Case for Christianity (Macmillan, 1944, 1st American edition. The first binding of Lewis’ work was called Broadcast Talks and was published in July,1942, by Geoffrey Bles. Bles released Christian Behaviour: A Further Series of Broadcast Talks in 1943, followed by Beyond Personality in 1944. Bles had a publishing agreement with Macmillan to release Lewis’ works in the US and the Macmillan editions were delayed by a year or more. Finally, Lewis was persuaded to combine the three works into the one book, Mere Christianity, which was published by Macmillan.). Here is the preface to The Case for Christianity:
“I GAVE these talks, not because I am anyone in particular,
but because I was asked to do so. I think they asked me
chiefly for two reasons: firstly, because I am a layman, not
a clergyman; and secondly, because I had been a non-
Christian for many years. It was thought that both these
facts might enable me to understand the difficulties that ordi-
nary people feel about the subject. I am Church of England
now myself, but I have tried to put nothing into the second
series of talks which all Christians of all Churches do not
agree with. With this in view, I sent the script to four clergy-
men (one Church of England, one Roman Catholic, one
Presbyterian, and one Methodist) before they were given on
the air. The Church of England man and the Presbyterian
agreed with me throughout. The Roman Catholic thought I
went too far about the comparative unimportance of theories
of the “Atonement” in the fourth talk of the second series,
and the Methodist would have liked more about Faith in the
fifth talk of that series. Both these differences you will find
noted when you come to the place. Apart from those, I
believe you can take what is said in the second series as plain
Christianity which no Christian disagrees with. The first
series, of course, does not get as far as Christian doctrines; it
is more what might be called philosophy.”
(Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1944, v.)

The writing is terse. Lewis gave these talks in August, 1941, (“Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe”) and January/February, 1942 (What Christians Believe), and this period in his life was tremendously busy as he preached (e.g. The Weight of Glory on 8 June 1941) and traveled extensively to preach to RAF personnel around England. By the time he came to write the Preface, the US had entered the war and Hitler had turned against Russia. England was still in a desperate state and there was little time for frills or relaxation. Lewis stated the purpose for the book and how it came to be published. He briefly described the fact that he had consulted a diverse group of clergy and had very little opposition to his work.

When I turn to the Preface of Mere Christianity, I am face to face with a man whose circumstances are radically different. The war is over and his many books are gaining wide acceptance throughout the English speaking world. The tone is relaxed and genial. Lewis sense of humor is evident in small things that he says: the list of clergymen in the 1942 edition has become a disclaimer that, “You will not learn from me whether you ought to become and Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic.” Though eloquent, Lewis is humble. He explains that he is unwilling to enter into areas that are best handled by real experts. Mostly, he wants to give a gift to the Christian world of the things we agree upon and have to acknowledge as the ground of our faith.

The amazing thing to consider in all of this is that Lewis’ original work was conceived during wartime and his assertions could have easily been skewed to favor mother England and disparage Germany. There is no hint of apology in Lewis’ new Preface and there is no major revision to make the book palatable to the defeated Axis citizens. Anglican, Lutheran or Roman, all are acceptable to God through his son, Jesus Christ.

29 August 2004
Preface
Lewis’ use of the word “gentleman” as a comparative to the term “Christian” is prophetic. It has become impossible to classify any belief system as non-Christian when its adherents are obviously heretical. I am thinking of the very recent campaigns of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to be recognized as “Christian.” These campaigns are capitalizing on the fading condition of “Christian” as a descriptive term and its common use as a term of approval.

30 August 2004
Book I RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

1. The Law of Human Nature
I am immediately reminded of practical issues when Lewis begins with an appeal to standards and his observation that excuses are often the human product of denying the applicability of a standard. The practical maxim of which I am thinking is one that was taught in a management course, “No Results + Excuses is not = Results.” Results are results and they speak for themselves.
Today, I have held a double standard.

31 August 2004
2. Some Objections
Moral Law establishes priorities in our “instincts.”
Setting up any one impulse is dangerous as a guide to behavior. Is this analogous to elevating one spiritual gift in church? Is preaching the most important thing?
You wouldn’t call someone unspiritual because he doesn’t bother about things that don’t confront him on a daily basis—like Open Theism.

1 September 2004
3. The Reality of the Law
Evolutionists have been forced to give up the use of “morally loaded” terminology such as “good” or “bad.” Having substituted “negative” and “positive” for these terms, they have helped to destroy meaning in language and gained converts to their way of expressing ideas from among believers in Jesus.

2 September 2004
4 What Lies Behind the Law
Science can provide answers to the functions of reality but not to its meaning.
Basic Human question = “Who is the mind behind the Universe?”
Is “Purpose Driven” Christianity really Bergsonian?

3 September 2004
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
Progress may have to begin with repentance!
Is our evangelism selling a false Christianity? A Christianity that does not offer Forgiveness of Sins?

Book II WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

4 September 2004
1. The Rival Conceptions of God
The Righteous God would never do or declare anything evil and mandate its goodness by divine fiat.

5 September 2004
2. The Invasion
Real things are not simple. Is fundamentalism real? Is omniscience real? Omnipotence? Omnipresence? Is the “Simplicity of God” unreal –the “Eternal Now?”
Evil borrows goodness and misuses it. Righteousness stands on its own.
6 September 2004
3 The Shocking Alternative
Free will has made evil possible. In the open theism argument, God knows some absolutes regarding the future and all the possibilities. However, if the fixed things He knows are mandated by Him, then there is nothing left but evil possibilities. When they come to pass, is God responsible? Shabby theodicy.
Rotten stuff: The higher the physical order the worse it smells.
Rotting grass–not unpleasant
Rotting tomatoes–disgusting
Rotten eggs–nasty
Rotten meat–horrible
Gangrene–hideous
God’s Love is wounded in every sin. Such an idea is a more powerful modifier to behavior than any forensic approach.

7 September 2004
4. The Perfect Penitent
Thank God we don’t have to know how the atonement works as though it were a subject we would be tested on when the books are opened. 70% or better gets you a Heavenly Home!!
Was it always God’s plan (before the foundation of the world) to die–even without the aspect of sin and evil?

8 September 2004
5. The Practical Conclusion
Lewis betrays the indoctrination of his era: that evolution, on some level, is valid. Similar to the liberal taint in Barth–built in and not rooted out. What taints our generation??
Lewis fully rejects Gnostic concepts of the fullness evil in the flesh. Spiritual life is imparted to us and spread among us by physical things like baptism and the Bread and Wine of communion. God likes matter.
Interesting prophetic redaction here! Originally, Lewis says, “…you and I would think much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Berlin…” The present tense takes us back to the Broadcast Talks of 1941 — “Berlin” is specific and a reminder that Lewis made this prophetic remark in 1941 when German bombs were still falling on London every night!
Book III CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR

9 September 2004
1. The Three Parts of Morality
The notion that we can vote a good society into being by electing the”right” people is naive. The “right” people are corruptible, too.

10 September 2004
2. The “Cardinal Virtues”
We are willing to be happy with less than what will make us fit for God’s Kingdom. Our level of love is often no greater than what can be found in any natural man.

11 September 2004
3. Social Morality
Where, O Lord, are those places in my life where I want to shirk? Want to be a slacker? Want to blame others for why I am no farther along than I know I should be?
How many churches have had their ranks swollen by the fact that the pastor is now an “in” guy with the governor or senator or president? What about African-American pastors who become politicians? Was Martin Luther King misleading his people to demand civil rights?
Pride hinders charity while tipping and hospitality may be selfishly motivated.

12 September 2004
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
Is psychology and psychoanalysis good but tainted by their associations with Freudian philosophy? How valid are Jungian observations? The pragmatism of Viktor Frankl?
Am I, at the heart of it all, no more than a fiendish creature? How depraved is depravity?
Our natural condition is being ENEMY to God–not merely ambivalent. We are in the wrong army until we are in Christ.
Knowledge of good and evil implies an inherent goodness–not an inherent depravity.

13 September 2004
5. Sexual Morality
How do I manage to be chaste and modest together in my social setting?
Being chaste is not impossible except to those who won’t try at all—the issue is in the individual will.

14 September 2004
6. Christian Marriage
“…unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.” A sound principle–One cannot become financially sound by adding covetousness.
The idea that “The Passion” (2004 Mel Gibson movie) should be portrayed to thrill us is like falling in love–the thrill does not last–the excitement, with no depth of soul to accept it, will be supplanted by another thrill; perhaps a diabolical one.
From a 21st century perspective, Lewis’ notion of “state sanctioned” marriage is naive since he would not, at that time, have factored in homosexual marriage.
So the church, as bride and wed to Christ, must beware, in political circles, not to have its own way or it will move into a mode of inquisition that Jesus would not condone.

15 September 2004
7. Forgiveness
Lewis’ dictum, “hate the sin but not the sinner,” differs from the modern restatement along materialist lines: “Love the sinner but not the sin.” The latter implies ambivalence toward sin instead of the rejection of it found in the former.

16 September 2004
8. The Great Sin
My level of self-conceit is proportional to my hatred of prideful actions in others…snobbery and exclusion and patronizing.
Pride places me at enmity with God.
Being proud of the work my church does can turn into being proud of myself for being a member there.

17 September 2004
9. Charity
Lewis’ ability to use a simple concept (and a timely one, in those days saving money at a bank was more common) such as “…good increases at compound interest,” and apply it to life is amazing.

18 September 2004
10. Hope
Christian “cranks” (cranky people) would be those who are preoccupied with their goodness or sinlessness or piety.
Symbolism has great power to represent things other than what is obviously stated–but also leaves openings for misunderstanding.

19 September 2004
11. Faith
Imagination and Emotions are at war with Faith. Faith, itself, depends on Reason. Peter’s imagination and emotions overwhelmed him as he walked on water (did the work of faith)…imagination and emotions are attached to this world.
The name of the band…Sixpence None the Richer…derived from this picture Lewis uses about God’s providence.

20 September 2004
12. Faith
Is the doctrine of “OMNI’s” fit stuff for children but something that maturity has to see differently?

Lewis betrays his anti-Calvinist perspective here. However, he is talking at a level that does not include the true complexity of the issue of “who initiates the movement toward God?”

Book IV BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

21 September 2004
1. Making and Begetting
Jesus as a great moral teacher is only important to those who are beyond the scope of the lesser moral teachers…Plato, Aristotle, Confucius…
Corruption from Adam’s sin and fall works with less immediate impact on the things that resemble God in a less complex fashion. The highest does not stand without the lowest.
Psalm 42:5 Our spiritual life is merely the exhalation of God…not essentially like Him.

22 September 2004
2. The Three-Personal God
Lewis’ picture of the levels or dimensions that are not left behind as complexity increases is important–its fundamental basis is that the highest does not stand without the lowest.
Lewis says that theology began with Jesus. It was worked out by the Holy Spirit directing the men who wrote the Scriptures.
Islam, then, is the product of the Dirty God Syndrome. That is, God is viewed through a dirty lens…which makes Nazism and Communism Dirty God Doctrines.

23 September 2004
3. Time and Beyond Time
Lewis, if he has read Bevan at this point, has not chosen to agree with his denouncement of nunc stans.
Timeless life is not the same as Eternal now.
It appears that God allows time lapse to dictate events to some degree…otherwise, why use supernatural means (angels, e.g.) on occasion. Lewis is simplifying too much, here.
If I am the only one for whom Christ died, I am the only one who hammered the nails.
Lewis, here, is not true to his dimensional illustration. If time, for us, is a line, then time, for God, is a plane (or solid). A moment is a point, regardless to whom.
The end of this chapter reads a bit like Greg Boyd and open theism. How did Lewis arrive there when he was taking the classical position?
It’s interesting that Lewis’ Narnia tales offer a more mature treatment of time–reflection of Bevan?

24 September 2004
4. Good Infection
The picture of trinity here is somewhat helpful but does not wrestle with Jesus who laid aside his divine prerogative.
Lewis acknowledges the primacy of scriptural expression as opposed to those we may want to substitute.
Excellent description of the confessional statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

25 September 2004
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
First paragraph–Lewis points to “in Christ” that makes it a direct parallel to the idea of “in God’s image” instead of in Adam’s image.
Lewis expresses a connection between the various ways that different confessions describe being rightly related to Jesus.

26 September 2004
6. Two Notes
Lewis makes a jump here in assuming that “the process of being turned from a creature into a son would not have been difficult or painful if the human had not turned away…” The difficulty and pain would have been commensurate with Christ’s own… There was evil in the universe already.
Very important point that Lewis makes here regarding the way we imagine (make images) and use those to explain reality…especially eternal reality.

27 September 2004
7. Let’s Pretend
Morality is not able to turn us into sons and daughters of God. The least attempt at dress-up is better than keeping rules.
Lord, help me to carry this good infection and pass it on and not merely pass around the common cold of sinfulness.
Our reading is to inform us on how Christ wants us “dress us up” and not on how he wants us to learn Him as a subject.
I must pay close attention to what I am which is reflected in what I do.

28 September 2004
8. Is Christianity Hard or Easy
This brilliant man who could describe the precise nature of literary influences on history in the 16th century uses the word “pest” in its exact slang meaning–perfectly describing some busybody.
“The Coward and the Lazy Man: each gets the thing he avoids!” Lewis
Church exists for no other purpose that to draw men into Christ…the only purpose that should drive us.
“Jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg.” Amazing use of language that presents an image of the absurd thing alongside the things demanded.

29 September 2004
9. Counting the Cost
Interesting that Lewis lists “masturbation” as a sin but modern Christian ethicists who are pragmatic fundamentalists would disagree. Maybe masturbation is a sin to middle-aged moralists but not to erudite libertines molded from perfection.

30 September 2004
10. Nice People or New Men
There’s no difficulty seeing that Lewis expanded the concepts in this chapter into his novel, That Hideous Strength.

1 October 2004
11. The New Men
Lewis’ idea of transformation disagrees with Calvinist ideas of restoration–i.e. return to Eden. That creation is spoiled and new creation needs new raw material. The Dirt of Sin is to be transformed into a new body.
The rejection of “brainier men” is part of That Hideous Strength.
One needs to know Lewis to see how his argument runs contra to materialism.
The more we get “ourselves” out of the way…but Lewis would never agree that mere negation will do—unselfishness is NOT charity.

Who Will Weep for Uriah?

Who Will Weep for Uriah

2 Samuel 11 and 23 KJV

by David Price

 

grey dawn

before

grey walls

the wind

ironclad

                                                                        unkind 

 

Far away,

            David stirs

            in the furs

            and perfume.

He watches the fire,

Relishes the hearth,

Revels in power,

Reginal remnants.

 

Forty.

                      Nine and thirty.

Iron sharpens iron!

                      One man sharpens ‘nother!

How sharp are you today?

                     Sharp as death, Fine as hell!

What, no greaves today?

                     Nay! We’re at the wall.

Close work there, eh?

 

                     Where are the three?

North, West and South wall.

                     East for us again.

                     Westbound at snail’s pace,

                     Bound for heaven’s gate.

You Pagan! 

                     You Bastard!

 

South.

                     Aye?

I am South with Shammah.

                    What number is with me?Today’s reinforcements.

                    Not one is numbered,then? 

                    Would God Abimelech

                    could cast off the millstone

                   and be at my right hand.

Or Saul or Jonathan!

Amen!

 

Here is my gift to you.

                  A quiver! you cut deep.

It is no jest, my friend.

Forty darts is the tale,

When you alone will stand

Below the gates of hell,

No sword remains at hand.

Shout loud “Chazaq U Matz!”

Baptize your foe in fear,

Then prevail in the press,

Eyethrust a dart–or ear!

Forty foe you will so bless,

Hold high your hands to God’s.

 

A dart you have for Saul,

            one you have for Jonathan,

                                                      and,

Abimelech, you named.

 

Adino the captain,

Eleazar, Shammah,

These three, they are the three!

 

And three more – Abishai,

Joab, U Benaiah.

 

Asahel, Elhanan,

Shammah, U Elika.

U Helez, U Ira,

Abiezer, the priest.

Mebunnai, U Zalmon,

Maharai, U Heleb.

Ittai, U Benaiah,

Hiddai, Abi-albon.

Azmaveth, Elyachba,

Jonathan, U Shammah.

Achyam, Eliphelet,

Eliam, U Hezrai.

Pa-arai, U Igal,

U Bani, U Zelek.

Naharai, U Ira,

Gareb stands before you.

 

                    The count is nine and thirty,

                    and one for Uriah!

Nay, Friend! Tis forbidden.

For so it is written,

“Vengeance is mine, I repay!”

                   Then who numbers forty?This last is for the king.

                   Forty years may he reign!

 

 

 

       Why do we love this king?

Because he first loved us,

And gave himself for us.

 

                   Why does he hate us now?Because we die each day.

And he, not at all.

And so we shine

While he…

       Daily dies a small death;

       Deep in his covert,

       Chewing politics

       And Wooing women!

Yea!

                   And by his little death

                   I gain glory unsought.

                   But where is irony

                  Where there is no iron!

 

      Why do we love this king?

Because he is our king!

 

                  Why do we love this king? 

Fairest of ten thousand,

                  And I, ten thousand one.

     

      Why do we love this king?

He is the King of kings.

Napkins

The first sunny springtime day fills the clothes hanging on the line with a scent from heaven, refreshing the heart; long awaited all winter.  Clothes dried at the hearth have their own smell: that woody, homely flavor that reminds us of the darker days of winter.  No matter what, folding them is no chore, but the doorway into precious memories.

 

Napkins, towels and linens spill from a basket on the floor beside Mary, where she sits, the first napkin folded and pressed against her breast.  She is unaware of how long Joseph has been standing in the doorway smiling at the beauty of her.  The” baa – baa” of a baby lamb floats in through the window on a warm spring breeze.  The bleating sound disturbs her reverie and a smile reshapes her wistful face as she looks up to meet Joseph’s gaze.

 

Joseph kneels beside her and kisses her softly.  He plucks a napkin from the basket. Holding it up, he looks at it, smells it and says, “It smells like love.”  Then, quickly he folds it twice, into a smaller square.  “What’s this?” he questions, taking the napkin she is clutching from her hand, “You have folded the corners together to make a triangle the way. . .”

“. . . the way he always did.’’ she finishes for him.

“But Mary,” he softly chides, “How many dozens of times did you go back and refold Jesus’ triangle napkins to make a square?”

She lovingly touches the napkin in his hand.  A tear slips out and she says, “But I miss him!” Joseph gently wipes the tear away with the triangle napkin.

 

 

 

The day’s warmth has been displaced by a cold spring rain that has worked its way beneath Joseph’s cloak and into his robe. Mary’s hands are still and her face seems to be drawn by the sagging flame.  Needles now immobile, the tiny garment emerging from the yarn is not thoroughly defined.  Joseph introduces a slender stick of red cedar kindling into the flame and transfers the light to the wick of the brass oil lamp waiting on the table by her left elbow.  Kneeling beside her he holds the lighted wood for her to blow out the flame, the sweet smoky scent is almost like incense. She runs her fingers through the gray hair at his temple and says “You are all wet!  What have you been doing?” 

He grimaces and says, “It is getting harder to catch a lamb, now that I am getting older.” 

She laughs.  Gripping the rough wool at his neck she says, “You are not getting older!  You are just well seasoned!  But you ARE all wet.  Give me this cloak so I can hang it by the fire.” She spreads the garment on a rack while he stirs the coals and puts a log on, bringing the fire back to life.

 

She says quietly, “So we are still planning to go down to Jerusalem tomorrow?”

 

“Yes. I have no choice; all the arrangements need be made so that Jesus can have the Passover feast with his disciples without any disturbance.”

 

Mary grasps the points of the needles in her left hand to count back to where she slipped a stitch and asks him, “Where do you think he is now?”

 

 Joseph hesitates for a moment.  Breathing out, he barely whispers “Mmmm, Ahhh, Bethany” He then looks at her and says clearly, “He should be in Bethany with the family of Simon the leper.”

 

 She shudders and stares into the fire and asks to no one in particular, “Why does he always have to go near that disease?  Hasn’t it done enough damage to us…to him already?”

 

Joseph turns to face the fire.  Holding out both hands he explains to her gently, “It is the safest place for him at the moment, with the holy days approaching.  The Pharisees won’t come near him in the home of someone who is considered to be unclean.” 

 

“Pharisees! Pharisees! Always Pharisees! Why can’t they leave him alone! Why must he always argue with them and call them such horrible names!  He knows they are going to kill him!”

 

Joseph softly says to her, “We’ve been over this before.  It IS why he came.  Without His death there is no resurrection, remember… He is the resurrection.”

 

“He came to me first!”

 

 “He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

  Before he came to us, He is always the one and only Son of God.”

 

 “It seems so cold, so wrong.  To have it all planned… to go straight into the arms of death.”

 

“We can’t question that part!  We just have to accept and trust that he has to see it through. Only he knows when it is finished”.

 

 

 

Joseph is caught up in a torrent of activity –

The upper room, Gethsemane, the Judas kiss.

arrest, trial, Herod, Pontius Pilate

mocking scourging crown of thorns

cloth rips

nails pound

blood

and pain

and tears.

 

 

… Mary is forced  to wait and try to comfort her soul in the company of her friends. Martha and Mary of Bethany are there with Mary Magdalene.  She and the other ladies in Jerusalem spend time in prayer and wondering where Jesus is.  Hers is the lot of all women: to hurt and love and wait and hope until the time comes when they all converge.  There is still more waiting until, at last, the day and the hour has come.  And there he is, hanging in the midst of apathy and pathos; the rattling dice on the seamless robe and the cursing soldiers.  The companions of Jesus in death are common criminals who send up the screams and groans of their blasphemy amid the malice of sin.

 

Finally, what her head knew to be true -though her heart could not accept- was hanging before her.  How could His words, “I will be lifted up and all men will be drawn to me,” have meaning when death is death?  She hears those words ringing in her ears- ringing -the ringing sounds of the hammer- hammering nails into his hands…his feet.  He sends her away with John and there is no more waiting.  Darkness closes in.

 

 

There is a pain, a fear, an emptiness beyond understanding…so encompassing that you know there is a fine thread between sanity and madness.  You touch the thread and wonder if madness truly offers relief.  Your heart is unraveling!  Fascinated by the unraveling – your life unraveling – all of history unraveling.  The unraveling is choice and you don’t know- at that very moment -which one you are choosing- one or the other.  Time has no meaning.

 

 

Mary dreams frustrating dreams- drawing water with a sieve instead of a ladle.  Baking pies, but pulling out empty shells from the oven.  No matter how quickly she knits, the same amount unravels from the bottom.  Mary Magdalene is waking her to eat while it is still dark.  The younger woman grasps her hands in both of hers and calls to her, “Mary! Mary! We have much to do.  The sun is almost up and it’s the third day!”

 

The long shadows of dawn made seeing difficult in the garden.  The women were inside the tomb before they realized the stone had been rolled away.  Mary Magdalene held the brass lamp aloft to reveal the grave clothes at one end of the slab and the neatly folded napkin that had covered his face at the other.  His mother sinks to her knees as light dawns in her heart.  She touches the napkin and caresses the creases and begins to laugh and cry at the same time.

 

 “He has folded the corners together to make triangles, the way He always did!  HE’S ALIVE!”

Algebra in the Beginning

In a recent conversation a friend who is a mathematics professor, I mentioned that the literal Hebrew of Genesis (vss. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) speaks of “day one,” “day two,” day three,” etc. (the 7th day is expressed differently – possibly the reason it begins chapter 2). I explained to him that the picture that came to my mind was that of graphing equations in algebra: “x axis” and “y axis” … numbered graph squares 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,… from where the x and y meet. The Hebrew word “Bereshith” in 1:1 is translated, “In the beginning, ” and acts like the “0” (zero) point where x and y meet. My friend reminded me that the “zero” point is called the “origin” in algebra (some of you would remind me that I am describing “Cartesian coordinate”).

The “origin,” then, functions as a fixed point of reference. A good picture of this concept is the cornerstone. One cannot begin to build the walls of a house without a fixed point of reference, the place where the first block is laid. As a result, all the other blocks must conform to the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6). A random brick in the neighbor’s back yard cannot claim to be part of the building unless it is attached to the wall somehow. “Do it yourself Christianity is unheard of. We are all under orders to be conformed to Jesus (Romans 8:29).

There is a bit of a catch in all of this picture that needs to be addressed. Some Christians with a mindset that God is not very flexible will see the idea of building blocks as indicating what they might call “limited atonement.” While I have some sympathy for their perspective, I have to take a stand against it. The basis for my position is that they tend to confuse the ultimate for the proximate. Seeing a picture of a full grown man, a little boy may try to look and act like the man. However, no matter how he tries, his proximate condition cannot function in the ultimate world of the full grown man (ever notice that the Bible continually talks of the children of Israel or the children of God….We never are called the “adults of God!”).

The Cornerstone mentioned above is certainly a feature of the ultimate, fully complete, new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven (Revelation 21). However, here in the valley of the shadow of death, we are only able to deal with less substantial materials. Our focus must still be on tentmaking since we are not yet fit for the building block phase of construction (Philippians 3:20-21). The principals of tent construction have their similarities. Instead of setting a cornerstone, a substantial stake must be driven into the ground. All the corners of the tent and the tension of the tent cloth depend on the other stakes in the “Cartesian” layout (perhaps indicating that time is planar instead of linear?) being conformed to the corner. So long as we are in the world of time, we are to be conformed to a historical stake (born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, suffered under Pontius Pilate) that was driven into the ground upon which our savior, Jesus Christ, gave his life as a ransom for us. Jesus does not speak hyperbolically (he never does) when he says, “take up your cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Refuse the tent stake and you are no part of the tent. Comfortable Christianity is a contradiction (John 16:33).

This proximate tabernacle perspective remains until the ultimate temple comes down out of heaven: both are mentioned in Revelation 21. The interesting feature of the tent (proximate) that is not true of the stone building (ultimate) is that tent expansion ()Isaiah 54: 2-3) is possible by 1) adding material, 2) adding stakes into new ground, 3) strengthening the old stakes and cords, 4) lifting the center pole higher, and, 5) adjusting the tension to make the new unit whole. Perhaps it is no accident that the world’s greatest missionary was also a tentmaker (Acts 18:3); continually staking out new territory in the Gentile world around the Mediterranean Sea.