Saturday, March 10, 2012

Roger Olson, "Piper & Judgment round 2"

Roger Olson and John Piper, round two. Qualifications from Olson follow. 


"True, in this particular blog entry Piper does not explicitly say the tornadoes were God’s judgment on those towns. He does say, however, that the tornadoes were “God’s fingers.” In light of everything else he has written and said about calamaties and catastrophes, it is clear to me that he believes not only this tornado outbreak but every natural and man-made disaster (including the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.) are from God and not only in some attenuated sense in which most Christians would say they are from God by concurrence. (That is, by God’s permission and granted ability as the creator and governor of nature.)"
Olson/Piper II

Olson very often engages with folks who comment. If you have something to contribute, I'm fairly certain he'll answer. I might even post something myself. ;-)

--Nick

TheoPerspectives, "Orthodoxy & Gregory of Nyssa's Universalism"



From author James Goetz,
"I: INTRODUCTION
Gregory of Nyssa famously defended the doctrine of the Trinity in the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381, and Gregory of Nyssa also defended the doctrine of universalism with the restoration of all things. Ironically, the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Origen's universalism according to the wishes of Emperor Flavius Justinian, who wanted to condemn all universalist teachings, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council also commended Gregory of Nyssa, calling him a holy Father who wrote about the true faith. And universalism has been heterodox in most of Western Christianity since then.1

On the other hand, universalism was an orthodox option during the Early Church and the first four Ecumenical Councils. For example, four of the six known theological schools during the Church's first five centuries taught universalism.2

Gregory of Nyssa had exemplary trinitarian credentials and taught that the unsaved dead suffer punishment in hell while he also taught that hell is purgatorial and temporary. He taught that hell is purgatorial in that the punishments in hell purge the sinful dispositions of the unsaved dead. And he taught that hell is temporary in that the unsaved dead suffer punishment in degree and duration according to their sinfulness. And this implies that the unsaved dead will eventually repent in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and get liberated from hell.3

Modern evangelical denominations typically forbid doctrines of purgatorial hell. For example, the Assemblies of God credentialed me a few years ago, but I had to resign my credentials or waive my right to teach my recently modified interpretations of future prophecies in Scripture.

This paper contends that Christian Scriptures teach that the unsaved dead can eventually repent in the name of Jesus to get saved out of hell and accepted into heaven. And this paper contends that such formerly orthodox teachings should be orthodox within evangelical churches. And here is a review of some relevant Scriptures and various opposition. . .
Gregory of Nyssa famously defended the doctrine of the Trinity in the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381, and Gregory of Nyssa also defended the doctrine of universalism with the restoration of all things. Ironically, the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Origen's universalism according to the wishes of Emperor Flavius Justinian, who wanted to condemn all universalist teachings, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council also commended Gregory of Nyssa, calling him a holy Father who wrote about the true faith. And universalism has been heterodox in most of Western Christianity since then."
To continue, TheoPerspectives and Gregory of Nyssa


A very interesting post. Gave me much food for thought. 


--Nick

Friday, March 9, 2012

The Lewis Black Today

This is dedicated to Chance. One love.
"We have a two party system: the Democratic party, which is a party of no ideas, and the Republican party, which is a party of bad ideas. And the way it works is, the Republican stands up in Congress and goes, "I got a really bad idea." And the Democrat says, "And I can make it shittier."" --Lewis Black.
--Nick 

Daily Dose of Humor, "Boondocks!"






Thursday, March 8, 2012

Roger Olson, "John Piper & Judgment"

This got me thinking. I remember Greg Boyd preaching a sermon back in the day addressing John Piper (though not by name, he made a point of critiquing the view not the man) and denouncing what I'm (cheekily) dubbing "Calvinistic Divine Command Theory." I'm certain there is a technical term, but I like my idea better.

Anyway. Olson is -- I think -- sharp but fair. He gets a little overly pointed at the end (something I'm not certain I endorse), but I'm curious to see if John Piper will indeed respond. This is not the first time John Piper has made comments of this nature. After this, I'm not certain I see much of a difference between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in regards to disasters/terrorist acts and calling upon the name of God as a salve to tragic wounds.

Hopefully, we'll become privy to the direct link Piper has to the Almighty, or Piper will admit he was wrong and apologize, or there is some third option I can't foresee. Either way, read the article.

To continue, Roger Olson.

--Nick


Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Kony and the Pursuit of Justice

Check this out!

Kony

--Nick

C.S. Lewis & his "Master", George MacDonald the Universalist part I

This article was offered for free by author Thomas Talbott on his website. It is from the anthology "All Shall be Well; Explorations in Universal Salvation and Theology, From Origen to Moltmann," edited by Robin Parry (or Gregory MacDonald, as he was known).


If anyone is looking for a historical look at famous Christian universalists, look no further. Everyone from Origen to Barth to Moltmann is covered in amazing detail and eloquent revelation.

And we start with my personal favorite deceased theologian, the Scottish minister and fantasy writer, George MacDonald. This will cover pages one through four.

Universal Salvation in the Theology of George MacDonald (1824–1905) by Thomas Talbott

Born and raised in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, the Victorian visionary and prolific writer, George MacDonald, achieved enormous popularity in his own day both as an imaginative storyteller and as an authentic prophetic voice. "Between 1851 and 1897," notes Frederick Buechner in the forward to Rolland Hein‘s biography, ―he wrote over fifty books—novels, plays, essays, sermons, poems, fairy tales, not to mention two fantasies for adults (Phantastes, 1858, and Lilith, 1895) that elude the usual categories.(1) His friendship with Lewis Carroll (the penname for Charles Dodgson) was very close, and he also made friends with such luminaries as Henry Longfellow, Walt Whitman, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mark Twain, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. At the height of his popularity in 1872, Macdonald traveled to the United States for a remarkably successful lecture tour in which he addressed huge audiences and "people flocked to him as prophet, seer, saint, all in one.(2) But in no way did MacDonald seek popular acclaim or tailor a message in an effort to achieve popularity; to the contrary, he always remained true to a stunning religious vision that, one way or another, expressed itself in virtually all of his writings, lectures, and delivered sermons. It was a stunning and utterly consistent vision of God‘s all-inclusive, all-pervasive, and inexorable love.

As it happened, MacDonald‘s popularity faded rapidly after his death in 1905. But even so, his influence upon important nineteenth and twentieth century writers ensured an enduring legacy. As Nick Page notes in his introduction to an annotated edition of MacDonald‘s influential Phantastes (3), "The roll call of writers who have been influenced by his unique perspective includes Robert Louis Stevenson, G. K. Chesterton, E. Nesbit, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R Tolkien, Maurice Sendak, T. S. Eliot and W. H. Auden.(4) According to W. H. Auden, for one, MacDonald was "one of the most remarkable writers of the nineteenth century."(5) But probably no one did more than C. S. Lewis to rekindle popular interest in MacDonald, which has grown steadily over the past few decades. In his preface to George MacDonald: an Anthology, Lewis thus wrote: "I have never concealed the fact that I regard him as my master; indeed I fancy that I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him. But it has not seemed to me that those who have received my books kindly take even now sufficient notice of the affiliation."(6) Over the passing years, however, at least some of those who take "kindly" to Lewis‘ own books have indeed come to appreciate why he regarded MacDonald as his own tutor and "master."

Without question MacDonald‘s relationship with his father—an unbreakable bond of loyalty, trust, and unconditional love that developed between them—profoundly influenced his own understanding of God‘s relationship to created persons. On the one hand, George, Sr., was a simple farmer and a constant source of spiritual comfort to a young boy with a sickly constitution, who in his childhood lost his mother to the ravages of tuberculosis.(7) As MacDonald explicitly stated in one sermon, "In my own childhood and boyhood, my father was the refuge from all the ills of life, even sharp pain itself."(8) But, on the other hand, George, Sr., was also devoutly religious, a deacon in a local Presbyterian church, and committed to an especially stern form of Calvinism.

So, because MacDonald was never able to reconcile in his own mind his father‘s Calvinist theology with his father‘s own sensitive, caring, and loving nature, he began to reject his father's theology at a remarkably early age. As Rolland Hein observes in his biography, "The young George took churchgoing very seriously";(9) but his reaction to what he heard in church was often to question or even to reject it. When he first heard ―the doctrine of [limited] election," for example, "he said he did not want God to love him if he did not love everybody."(10) The boy was even known to experience physical pain while sitting in church. From the beginning, however, he loved the Christian Scriptures and spent years as a young man studying them in their original languages. But the more he studied, the more persuaded he became that he needed to unlearn almost everything he had learned in church. He thus wrote the following to his father, with whom he remained in loving contact throughout all of his early struggles: "I love my Bible more—I am always finding out something new in it—I seem to have had everything to learn over again from the beginning—All my teaching in youth seems useless to me—I must get it all from the Bible again."(11)

MacDonald received his formal education at Aberdeen College and subsequently at Highbury Theological College in London, where he studied for the Christian ministry. But he resigned under a cloud of heresy from his first (and only) pastorate after only three years, and I doubt that anyone who reads his voluminous Unspoken Sermons or the lengthy religious reflections embedded in his Victorian novels would likely find this development surprising. For MacDonald was a persistent critic of Western theology, particularly as we encounter it in the likes of Augustine and Calvin, and his own religious convictions tended to accord far better with the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Even as many Christians believe that, despite a detailed knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus‘ opponents among the scribes and the Pharisees had simply misunderstood the revelation that Moses and the Hebrew prophets had delivered to them, so MacDonald came to believe that, despite a detailed knowledge of the Christian Scriptures, far too many Western theologians have simply misunderstood the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. So perhaps it is not from religious leaders and scholars, he concluded, that we should even expect the greatest insight and clarity of vision. Here is but one example of his attitude towards the Western theological tradition:

"How terribly, then, have the theologians misrepresented God . . .! Nearly all of them represent him as a great King on a grand throne, thinking how grand he is, and making it the business of his being and the end of his universe to keep up his glory, wielding the bolts of a Jupiter against them that take his name in vain. They would not allow this, but follow out what they say, and it comes much to this. Brothers, have you found our king? There he is, kissing little children and saying they are like God. There he is at table with the head of a fisherman lying on his bosom, and somewhat heavy at heart that even he, the beloved disciple, cannot yet understand him well. The simplest peasant who loves his children and his sheep were—no, not a truer, for the other is false, but—a true type of our God beside that monstrosity of a monarch."(12)

As this passage already illustrates, MacDonald passionately believed that God‘s glory consists not in his power or his kingship, but in his humility, in his loving nature, and in his eagerness to give of himself to all of those whom he loves into existence in the first place.

To be continued.

--Nick



Footnotes:

1 See Hein, George MacDonald: Victorian Mythmaker , xvii. 
2 Ibid. His most popular lectures were on Robert Burns and Hamlet , but his repertory also included lectures on the British poet and humorist ―Tom Hood , the Lyrics of Tennyson , King Lear , Macbeth , and Milton.‖ (See Raeper, George MacDonald , 292).
3 Phantastes had a dramatic effect on C.S. Lewis and also influenced such fantasy writers as J.R.R Tolkien and Madeline L‘Engle.
4 See Page‘s introduction to the special annotated edition of Phantastes , 30.
5 Ibid., quoted on the second inside page.
6 Lewis (ed.), George MacDonald: An Anthology , xxxii.
7 "MacDonald was often ill as a boy. On one occasion he was kept in bed for four months and bled from the arm . . .[His] entire life . . . can be characterized as what he had time to do between bouts of illness‖ (Jeff McInnis, Shadows and Chivalry, 11). And yet, though he too was afflicted with tuberculosis, MacDonald nonetheless lived a relatively long life.
8 "Abba, Father!" In Unspoken Sermons , 284. MacDonald recognized, of course, that some people have a less than that you have missed in life. Every time a man might have been to you a refuge . . . that is a time when a father ideal relationship with their own father. So to them he went on to say: ―You must interpret the word [―father‖] by all might have been a father indeed‖ (Ibid ).
9 Hein, George MacDonald: Victorian Mythmaker , 6.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., 31.
12 "The Child in the Midst." In Unspoken Sermons, 15. Unspoken Sermons was originally published in three series in 1867, 1885, and 1889 in London by Longmans, Green & Co.

Daily Dose of Humor, "Atonement & Charades?"

Uhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . .


At least the slip didn't read "reprobate."

--Nick

The Grey, a brief review


Spoilers referenced

A job at the end of the world. Stuck in the bleak arctic, Ottway (Liam Neeson) is a sniper hired by an oil crew to protect them against the worst nature has. With his dark past very present in his mind, he boards a company airplane home with an oil crew as uncivilized as the landscape. After a random storm, the plane crashes in a frozen hell of ravenous wolves and unforgiving conditions. With only wits and ebbing resources, Ottway realizes they are being stalked by a pack of wolves. And it becomes a race between species to out-fight the other as the cold blizzard brings most certain death.

And it is not just man against nature. It is man versus death.

As the opening voice over narrates the futility of a life devoid of meaning, Ottway is preparing to commit suicide. With his heart broken and his spirit in pieces, The Grey begins where most stories about redemption end. Neeson, with his gravelly voice and sunken eyes, is the last candidate I expected to find in this story, touted as “Taken” with wolves. As advertised, The Grey was touted as Liam Neeson kicking ass and making slippers out of the remains of wolf.

Instead, we get a soulful and complex figure haunted by the demons of the past, as well as the specter of death, and Neeson transcends his own acting action film persona to give us a character who is both fragile and strong. A man who bleeds and begs of the Divine to save him. The scene that involves Neeson literally screaming and cursing the Divine is both chilling in it's realism and horrifying when we realize that he might actually be right. The scene is so profound when one thinks about the personal background of Neeson, who lost his wife several years before.

When taken in that way, the scene that has now become inescapably haunting in my mind is all the more visceral and real. I wasn't certain it was Ottway who was screaming at the Divine, but Neeson. Though, I've heard that Neeson is a Roman Catholic, even the best of us find it crushing to even consider the hand of the Divine in the midst of unspeakable tragedy.

Indeed, death gets quite a bit of screen time, both in conversation and action, with the wolves manipulating the group, and the fights are sparse but vicious and brutal. But that is not the point of the story, and director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team) doesn’t dwell on the gore, only using it to point to the wider philosophical spectrum. The musical score is sparse, and allows the film to set it’s own pace, which allows for the silences to speak louder about the characters. There are scenes of graphic violence involving people's in a state of shock being ripped apart, but the images are often beautiful in their transcendent power. The violence is not the point.

Death, and how we deal with it, is the point. It is cold, calculating, and inescapable. Like God's judgment, there is nothing we can do to be free of it's curse. At least, for now.
 

I sat on my couch for three hours last night, pondering the philosophical concepts of The Grey. I didn’t remember the blood, the jump scenes, the scenery, the music or the acting; though all of that is outstanding. But, The Grey is not about the wolves, or even about Liam Neeson. It is first and foremost a story about God, and where He is when suffering bares it’s fangs. The film is not necessarily interested in answering the provocative questions it presents, nor should it, but it presents them in the midst of transcendent emotion and complex spirituality.

The ending is akin to The Sopranos, and it will divide audiences. I personally felt it ended on a pitch-perfect note, both ambiguous and gripping. It allows it’s themes to fully remain intact without succumbing to cliche, and frankly, it is refreshing to see a film end a film on it’s own terms, rather than on the expectations of it’s audience.

The twist that is revealed will not rock your world, but the climactic build up to it had tears in my eyes. It forces us to look beyond the present state of chaos and focus on what gives life meaning. And does that meaning involving more than just an instinct for survival?


Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day


Come for the wolves, stay for the rest. It will give you far more meaning for your dollar.

4.5 stars out of 5. 


For the original (shorter) review, check The Christian Manifesto.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Catholic-Evangelical Dialogue part 1"


I'm still not certain why Catholics are viewed as sub-biblical by other Christians. I'm reading this now, maybe I'll get some answers. This series, either way, should be interesting.
About a year ago I reported here on an Evangelical-Catholic (or Catholic-Evangelical) dialogue event. Last year I only heard the plenary address which was public. This year I was invited to participate in the following day of theological conversation. I truly appreciate that invitation and opportunity once again to engage in theological dialogue with Catholics and Protestants of other traditions. 
This is the most recent of many Catholic-Evangelical dialogues in which I have    participated . . .
Catholic/Evangelical

--Nick

Atheism & "The God Wars"

This was enlightening. Several atheists sat down and discussed various differing opinions about their aversion/respect towards religion. Some even suggested very non-mainstream atheist approaches that backfired on them.
"Alain De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists' temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation. 
This has been enough to bring the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head. The temple idea in particular made them reach for their best books of curses.
“I am rolling my eyes so hard that it hurts," wrote the American biologist and neo-atheist blogger P Z Myers. "You may take a moment to retch. I hope you have buckets handy." Myers has a vivid but limited prose palette. 
 
There have been threats of violence [as well]. . ."
To continue, NewStatesman article

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Samuel Adam's Cinder Bock

Samuel Adams -- Cinder Bock Limited


Alcohol content 9.4%. The initial aroma is dark and almost bitter. This is off-set by the brief maltiness and the almost instantaneous sweetness that follows. The sweetness gives off flares of toffee and caramel, as well as smoke and oak. The sweetness continues after the bite, descending into a silkiness that takes forever to leave. It's like a distant relative who works in space travel and ninja training; you just don't want him to leave.

Buy if: you love Bocks and sweet beers. Especially German Doppelbocks.

Overall verdict: though overly sweet, the smokiness and heaviness work together to form magic.

4.5 out of 5.

--Nick

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Harold Camping's Rapturous Apology

Wow. I'm amazed that he apologized. Check it out!
"We have learned the very painful lesson that all of creation is in God's hands and He will end time in His time, not ours. . ."
Camping's apology


--Nick

Roger Olson, "You might be an Arminian if. . . "

Olson drops some knowledge.

"So, the approach I’ll take is threefold. First, characteristics I think are minimally necessary to qualify as an Arminian. This is my “generous Arminianism” definition. Second, additional characteristics I think are very valuable for an Arminian to possess. Third, characteristics that I think disqualify a person from being considered an Arminian. 
Before launching into it, however, I should reveal how I go about making these decisions. First, I study the history of Arminianism beginning with Arminius himself and his immediate followers, the first generation Remonstrants (up through the 1620s when all the Remonstrants seemed to be faithful to Arminius’ own teachings). Second, I consider what scholars, theologians, leading ministers who regard themselves as Arminians believe. Third, I look at what scholars who are not Arminians say about it. My “anchor” tends to be Arminius himself."

To continue, Olson and Arminianism


--Nick

Easter and the Descent into Hell

My lady wrote this. I found it very interesting.
"In 1 Peter 4:1-6, Christians are called to live for God after Christ’s own model and not like those around them, their lives full of the hope and assurance that they will be vindicated when God judges the living and dead. For this post, some of the exegetical issues influencing the meaning of the text will be focused on in dealing with those already dead and The Universal Scope of Judgment in 4:5-6. . ."
In this last section Peter unfolds the reality of the situation described in vv.2-4. While still on earth, those whose practices were against God were surprised that the Christian renounced such customs and went further out of their way to slander. Jobes observes, “The universal claim to truth was as offensive to first-century Greco-Roman thought as it has become in today’s pluralistic culture.” Also, “The claim, so popular in today’s intellectual milieu, that truth is socially construed opposes ideas of universal truth. When applied to religious thought, it implies that a given religion is true only for those who believe it.” Under this kind of assumption, it is not surprising that those who claim there is objective truth or live at odds with the status quo would face hardship. In response to this setup, Peter tells us that “the living and the dead” will be judged. God’s judgment is universal and not only applicable to the Christian. “The apostle teaches here that no one escapes God’s judgment, which will either acquit or condemn based on response to Christ, the Living Stone or the stumbling stone (2:7-8).”[1] In sum, whatever the human verdict, God’s verdict stands.
To continue, Post-Mortem Conversion?

--Nick

Monday, March 5, 2012

Newt Schrute

Hoooooooooo boy.


This is for giving me over 4,000 views in less than 2 weeks. Very cool. Thanks. ;)

--Nick

TheoPerspectives, "What does Scripture say about 2nd and 3rd Base?"

I'm currently awaiting a potential copy of "Conditional Futurism" and I may be interviewing the author James Goetz in the near future. He's a cool cat, and the world needs more dope felines around. For now, here is a post of his own. 


Disclaimer, there are some frank writing within the post. Just in case you are unsupervised around the computer. 
He begins:
"I appreciate that many teens and adults have taken a pledge to abstain from sex apart from marriage. Some make this choice primarily for health reasons while others make the choice because they honor God by obeying Scripture. I wish that I did not have to write this embarrassing article, but everybody does not have the same definition for "sex". For example. . ."
For more, TheoPerspectives


--Nick

Women in Ministry, Or Helpful Theology of Gender Facts

I contributed a little to this, and Allison Quient did a majority of the research. The post on her blog is incredibly in-depth and focused. Check it out.

A sample:
Did you know…? 
"I have come to understand that many people don’t know some of the key facts and information about debated Scripture passages for a theology of gender. My primaryaim here is NOT to provide you with an Egalitarian interpretation of Scripture, but some key bits of information to consider in the debate. It is up to you to think through these and come to your own conclusions and interpretations. 
If you want, skip to the books you are more curious about. If you want specific citations or sources that I didn’t include, just ask and I’ll give them to you."
Allison Quient's page

--Nick

Why Satan is more powerful than God: a brief (and hopefully) thoughtful critique


First, the (kinda cool) image:



I will be responding to each line. First, a summation.

There are numerous assumptions either hidden or shown via this picture. The classic "problem of evil," which cannot be dismissed these days, seems to be one such assumption. This is not a negation of the problem of evil, nor is it in anyway praising it. I realize and have struggled with the problem of evil in the past, though mostly due to not having a developed theodicy and simply not knowing how to respond to objections.

But, the issue is not about heaven or hell, or Satan being more powerful or intelligent. It seems to be far more indicative about the nature of God, and how this person sees him.

Line one:


I'm not certain I disagree. However, the verses cited in support do not necessarily support an eternal conscious existence. The verse cited in Romans specifically mentions death, not hell. Revelation is an ambiguous passage that simply states that there are people outside the gates -- gates that never shut. I'm currently reading a book by Brad Jersak called "Her Gates Never Shut" that explores the concept of Revelation and the 'gates that never shut.' More to come.

This does not necessarily support the idea of "hell" as "hell" or hades, is thrown into the lake of fire earlier in chapter 20. Which leaves it open for a possible discussion as to what happens. Many would disagree, but I think there is plenty of room for interpretation.

Line two:


There are MANY other verses that support the idea of God desiring/willing that all men would be saved. Arminians wouldn't disagree, nor would Calvinists (though they have a different take on the phrase "all men.")

I Timothy 2:4 speaks of God's desire to save all men/ Romans 11:32 speaks of having mercy upon all/ Lamentations 3:22 & 3:31-33 speak about God not rejecting forever and being bountiful in love/ The (almost annoying) cliche verse John 3:16.

I'm not certain much more needs to be said. Just that God's love is far greater than one verse. I'm also not convinced that this a secondary goal or desire of his, and indeed I would question the assumption that God's primary goal is to glorify himself. But that is a conversation for another time between friends (hopefully) over alcohol.

Line three:


Wikipedia is not a necessarily valid source of information. I prefer redditt. There are many books written about Biblical prophecy, and simply reading them for yourself is best.

In short, this line ought to be dismissed until actual evidence is offered.

Line four:


I would argue that there are some great reasons (somewhat controversial reasons) that support this claim. But, sure, I don't disagree about what Christ's death accomplished. I prefer the classical view of the atonement versus Penal Substitution, but I'm not interested in dying on any particular hills this evening.

Line five:


I'm not certain Luke 13 is necessarily a parable or not. Instead, it seems that again Jesus is drawing a specific parallel between the people who claimed his name and did not act according to his teachings and the people who acted in accordance with Christ. In fact, I think verse 30 (which was not cited) sums up the entire thrust of the section:

"Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

See the story of Jacob and Esau, as one the lesser will rule the former. And yet they were reconciled at a later time.

This fits perfectly with the parable about the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. It does not seem to speak specifically about eschatological judgment, or even "hell", but of right action inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is, of course, based on the brief memory of an F.F. Bruce commentary on the NT where I think he mentioned something along those lines. I could be mistaken, but it seems to make some sort of sense right now. If shown wrong, I'll re-write. We are very quick to jump upon any teaching about 'hell', but we're also very quick to miss the simplicity of many parables. I think this is a classic example.

So, indeed, v30 of Luke's gospel doesn't necessarily explain eschatological judgment, but provides us with what Christ preached about how we are to act now in accordance with his teachings. Reversalism seems to be the main thrust of the passage, and is amply supported by multiple other Scriptures.

Line six:


I think all Christians would dispute this. My analysis is very brief and simplistic, and I attempt no caricature.

Calvinists would say that God chose specific people in accordance with his purpose and for his glory. This includes only the elect. They would say that God only intended to save the remnant, and thus this satisfies his plan of which the elect are saved.

See John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Gordon Clark. 


Arminians would affirm that God loves everyone, but allows for human freedom and rejection. God does accomplish his plans, but human freedom trumps His ultimate desire for the salvation of all men. His plan to save all according to his foreknowledge, and the fact that all will eventually know of God, is complete. That some do not go to heaven is on the shoulders of those that refuse the free gift of grace, but God's plan on offering salvation is complete.

See Roger Olson, Jacob Arminius, Howard Marshall and Thomas Oden. 


Universalists (specifically Christian and exclusively through Jesus) affirm that God accomplishes his entire will, and that He factored human freedom into his sovereign will, or that through the unlimited election of all souls in compliance with the 4 other points of Calvinism, all shall be saved. This concludes the simple fact that He will save everyone in the end.

I think this option has a lot more weight than previously thought.

See Thomas Talbott, George MacDonald and Robin Parry.


All of the three systems triumphs over Satan, as Satan is genuinely defeated in the end -- either through imprisonment, ultimate death or reconciliation. The elect is saved. All of humanity is without excuse to reject God. All of humanity, regardless of Satan's attempts, will be saved.

Either way, the question is answered and the assertion is ultimately insufficient in it's overall critique.

--Nick

For a different and more Reformed perspective, check out this link from my friend Brandon:

http://www.brandonmelton.com/?p=1737

Scot McKnight, "Femsculine Christianity"

Well, the responses to John Piper haven't quite stopped. But this one is interesting, especially the example given from the point of view of the early church.

McKnight & "Femsculine Christianity"

--Nick

Robin Parry's "All Shall be Well," a review

Howdy folks. For those looking for a historical perspective on the Christians who believed in Universal Salvation, look no further. This is the definitive book.

And here is a review of it.

Theological Scribbles

--Nick

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Scot McKnight, "Looking forward to Judgment"

As always, Jesus Creed forces me to think about profound concepts in the very early morning with the door open and the snow blowing onto my bed.


One of the most common responses to anything preached or taught about the Last Judgment, the Great Judgment, or the Last Assize is fear or even terror. The topic alone creates anxiety in many. Perhaps this tells us more about the history of how this topic has been preached than what the Bible actually says. In other words, the last judgment has been undeniably used to “put the fear of God” into people … yet….
Is the last judgment preached or taught in your church as something to anticipate with joy or something used rhetorically to put the fear of God in people?
The most common response to judgment in the Old Testament, and one could say the same of the New Testament, according to A.C. Thiselton (in Life after Death) is that God’s people anticipates the judgment with joy because they see it as vindication and the revelation of ultimate truth.
Why? (1) All deception is put to an end; (2) God will vindicate publicly the oppressed (Psalm 98:2, 4, 9); and (3) God will reveal himself as King of all creation, and will put all things right. This is something not to fear but to long for.
Thiselton observes how the “judge” of the Book of Judges is a “savior” so that “judgment” morphs into “vindication” and “salvation.” The righteous God then is the saving God. He sketches then NT texts to conclude that the NT sees the last judgment as “an event to which Christians may look forward with joyful anticipation, although never with complacency or presumption” (173).
This entails what “justification by faith” means – and Thiselton argues God’s judgment is verdictive (he renders something into reality) and that we enjoy in the now that verdictive word God will pronounce over us, in Christ alone, on that day. Faith is the acceptance of that already-verdicted word of God. (Justification creates faith; faith doesn’t create justification.) So we are justified now because God “looks on” us in light of Christ and that final verdict.
Then he wanders — no better word for it — into whether or not there is retribution in God’s judgment or whether it is only restorative. He sides with Stephen Travis (who thinks there are some retribution verses in the NT) while basically agreeing with Chris Marshall (for whom restorative justice is the point).


McKnight & Judgment

--Nick

John Stackhouse on Mark Driscoll

A very interesting point by John.

"We are thus told, by Mrs. Driscoll as well as then by her husband, that a man who does not provide for his wife and children is flatly disobeying God. If she is out working and he isn’t–save only in extreme cases of injury, sickness, or other physical debility (unemployment is not mentioned as an excuse)–he is “worse than an unbeliever.” 
That last phrase comes from the text–the one and only text–adduced by the Driscolls on behalf of their forbiddance of men staying home and women working: I Timothy 5:8. And now a cascade of basic exegetical, theological, and homiletical problems begins:"

For more, John Stackhouse on Mark Driscoll

--Nick

"I Deny the Resurrection. . ."

Listen on. Very thought provoking perspective by Peter Rollins. Much thanks to Robin Parry for posting this little gem:

Theological Scribbles: "I Deny the Resurrection. . . "

Not what you thought, huh. The power of a provocative title. ;-)

--Nick