Great chain of redemption

Calvinists get all excited about Romans 29-20

²⁹ For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; ³⁰ and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

 I know this is their wet-dream, but if only with the tendentious Calvinistic verse-picking at work.

Even while he tends to Arminianism, Clarke's commentary on this segment is more to the fact of the matter. I also read it with a Molinist tinge, but I nevertheless don't think 'Middle Knowledge" is either necessary or helpful as it seeks too much without providing enough.

Let's move slowly:

 

God knew there would be those who had faith in Christ.

Because God is creator and  made us in his image he knows what humans are like and capable of (although child sacrifice took him by surprise: Jeremiah 19:5) and the range of their dispositions and inclinations. The range of human thought, capability and motivations is for God is finite and tiny. We can present to God no conundrum.

We are constrained by the reality we are in, so God has no need of meticulous or even particular 'foreknowledge'. In whatever combination of options available to any person and between all persons no impediment can be given to God's achieving his objective. He doesn't need to 'look into the future' because for God's no-limit-ness the finite (but very large to us) set of possible outcomes for humanity are trivially differentiated for God. Also the challenge range in the set is always within God's much larger capability range with respect to Romans 8:28.

That said, back to Romans 8

For that he knew there would be people who would become faithful to Christ

The destination of  those people he established was that they will be conformed to Christ and so in the New Creation and in my family.

How I will do that? I will have invited who those who are faithful and will justify and glorify them. So all who turn to me will have been those I've invited...but not all invited will necessarily accept the invitation, of course...I know people!

Ephesians 1:13

This is the true order of salvation (what theologians like to latinize to impress as Ordo salutis). Note, the 'in Him' is the theme of this pericope: all of it is about the result of being 'in Christ'.

 ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise...

 

Achievement badges.

In the diocesan newspaper there was a list of recent church worthies, both clergy-people and not, who had received a gong from the government. The equivalent to my mind of a primary school merit award or a boy-scout achievement medal.

Matthew 6:2-16 sprang to mind.

Why would one bother?

What is the point?

Does it aid the recipient in their humility, their growth in Christian maturity or the work of the gospel or making disciples?

No. It's just aligning with the powers of the world. 

I would be humiliated by such a bauble. 

Actually I did get a badge from the government once.

As a kid I was in a radio club run by the public-funded radio station. The government sent me the club badge. That's good enough for me! 

Why 4 Gospels?

Why not just one gospel?

The critical issue for any account of an event is evidence. The more witnesses the better. And better still if they have differing perspectives, that way you can be more sure that it is not a put-up job.

When police collect witness statements it gets very suspicious if they are the same, because everyone has a naturally different perspective. Same perspective points to collusion or fraud and raises the suspicion of just one witness giving a self-serving, and distorted report. This would probably be, in reality, an event in private and could be a complete fabrication

Such suspicion attaches to the Quran which was both 'revealed' in private and with circumstantial convenience, and the Book of Mormon, read by Joe Smith alone through magical glasses on gold tablets, which he did not and so probably could not produce!

Still, a sucker is born every minute...both these 'authors' had  predilections for multiple wives and violence, that would also attract the suckers!

Now think about the witnesses of a traffic accident where a number of reports are prepared by those who saw the event or attended the scene for the police to use.

The vehicle removal operative would have a report that was about vehicles and their condition, their place on the road and what had to be done to remove them.

The ambulance crew would talk about the conditions of the injured, perhaps how they were extricated from the cars, what immediate medical aid was given and the hospital(s) to which they were transported.

The on-lookers would give very different views depending on their location when the accident happened, their familiarity with cars and their degree of shock. If they knew the injured or  not would also be a factor.

The  police report from the GD police would provide one perspective, the technical report in evidence from Accident Investigation another.

All reports would differ, but al about the same accident with differing perspectives and purposes.

So the Gospels.

Mark gives a short action-filled account for the average Jewish disciple, let's say.

Luke is interested in fine detail for an educated Greek readership.

Matthew concentrates on the theology and

John writes with a more philosophical or spiritual interest for the more sophisticated Jew or Greek, perhaps.

Some different emphases are given by the writers for their different readers. Variously emphasizing this and sometimes that.

Differences don't mean contradiction, they mean different perspectives with different emphases and referring to different parts or aspects of the mission..

The multiplicity of gospels show this was not an mission or events in secret, but were before witnesses consistently.

If there is only one witness, the cops are understandably sceptical that there is a case without substantial evidence. Once again, compare the Quran where the only witness was self-proclaimed beneficiary of the 'revelation'.!

 

 

Schaeffer and Sartre?

Francis Schaeffer claims that Sartre asserted (words to the effect) that without an infinite reference point man has no true meaning.

Now, I've not found that specific remark, or anything that directly echoes it in what I've read of Sartre...and life is too short to wade through Being and Nothingness without a PhD at the end, but I have read allusions to that in Existentialism is a Humanism and Nausea.

The idea is also consistent with what I recall of what Jaspers had to say in Philosophy of Existence. One only finds definition in some ultimate act of definition...and that is undefined. And, I would say undefinable when the self-experience is the locus of definition. It is a definition based on nothing which has a grounded basis. It floats arbitrarily unattached and truly undefined. So it has no 'meaning' (whatever that word now means) to even the one seeking definitive meaning.

So, lets clarify the conundrum to "without an infinite reference point there is no real self-knowledge."

We can only know ourselves in relation to others, in interpersonal relationships. There are no possible relationships in the non-personal world and any fake or imagined relations ships are in fact mute.

But if true significance ("meaning") comes only through relationships then there must always be a 'reference' relationship, let's say its one's parents. But this is not final. This reference relationship also needs a 'reference' relationship.

In a cosmos that is finally material, the final 'significance' has to be founded or grounded in some mute material thing or process. But it is inter-personally and therefore finally meaningless. It does not communicate, it reflects or responds to nothing of who one is and the only quality of the "relationship" is blank indifference. A nullity.

Yet we still have an inner quest for significance and live and relate as though this is a real thing.

An infinite regress explains nothing as it never ends in a final ground. It vanishes into the indefinably remote and unconnected other which results in the same abject indifference that the material cosmos characterizes.

True self-knowledge, significance or referentially secure "meaning" must remain the product of relationship. To be true and truly significant there must be a viable relational ground in which it terminates and gives a resolution or definition. A self-existent ground, an independent ontology.

Thus we need the Creator God who is person who sustains and anchors all relationship through being the ground and source of personhood and the final 'relater'.

Now the flip-side for the one who denies a Creator-God, who demands we applaud their faux independence and nonchalant self-applauding bravery.

The atheist's dilemma.

We all seek meaning, and often has it in life yet there can be no real axiological pay-off in a material cosmos, Whence the drive for, often achievement of 'meaning' or true significance? Each relies on an implicit teleology which is denied by the meaningless (literally) atheistic conception of termination.

Yet atheists typically act as though their teleological impulse is real while denying a real basis for the 'meaning' quest. So, what is it? The existentialist's self-defining grand act? But to what point? It all ends in dust and in the end no-one cares!

There is really no point, so an atheists has to explain to him/her-self why they even go to the doctor when feeling ill. That too is finally dust and a pointless way-post on the way to a pointless end.

Some provisional thoughts.

What to say when...someone asks why Easter is so important to Christians

As our senior minister this morning said:

"Death was broken when Yeshua the Nazarene rose from the grave, alive." 

He showed through his mission that he was God, others recognized him as God, God showed him as God, and he finally claimed he was Daniel 7's "Son of Man".

Then he proved it by rising from the dead to open the coming of the New Creation. By this bringing the final resolution of the "human condition" and mankind's basic dilemma of seeking grounding and its value in an immaterial and mute cosmos in which we are otherwise the aliens.

The small group newbie

This is a common enough situation. You conduct (facilitate, serve, convene) a small group in your congregation (youth or not), and a newbie shows up.

 A real newbie, someone new to the group's larger context (the Sunday congregation), someone not even Christian, perhaps. 

How to help them fit in?

Perhaps this:

Ask one of the established members if they would be hospitable to the new-comer. Of course this eventuality had been discussed early on, so no surprise to the member.

Just be hospitable. Introduce self, and sit with them.

Let them know they can quietly ask you anything. "I'll give a quick answer if I can, or I'll ask the group as though its my question." You explain.

Then the convenor will ask a couple of questions through the meeting with people in pairs/trios to discuss then offer their view. Here the new-comer can get a little more involved and acclimatized, even be the speaker of the concluded response. The person's steward might suggest this.

Perhaps the person acting as their steward could offer to attend a forthcoming Alpha group with them, or your church's intro afternoon in a couple of week's time at a friend's home.

Is your church up to the game, or does it rely on words, not actions?

This is discipling at work. Not for the new-comer, for the steward. 

 

Street 'evangelism' or is it the Harangue?

 The street corner 

Stand on a street corner or in a square grab a microphone and blast the by-passers with passages from the Bible. Or worse, just verses isolated from context. And keep doing it, telling people stuff they have no idea of the meaning. 

That's the Harangue. Even if you have colleagues handing out leaflets (please don't call them 'tracts'. No one knows what that means), engaging in conversation and offering to pray the sinners prayer, I doubt you are following in Paul's footsteps. Certainly our Lord told us not to pray showily in public (Matthew 6:5).

Paul slipped in to the culture of time and place and made sense to the hearers (Acts 17). The Harangue does not.

I saw a video of a quasi Harangue at a Muslim street fair for Ramadan (the Islamic knock-off of Lent). There was a bit of engagement, I was gratified to see. But no evidence of the real work. And maybe that was not shown at all.

The real work

This is working through the crowd either with or not a satchel of leaflets and Bible books, engaging people in conversation, perhaps assisted by provocative T-shirt slogans: "Is Issa Allah?" or "Is Allah 3?"

In an effort to Muslims the starting point has to be the keen religiosity of many,

Perhaps our common ground where the Quran calls as "people of the book" on which we should stand (The Quran instructs the "People of the Gospel" to follow the teachings therein: Surah 5:47). or that we are the worst of people!

Then we could raise that the Quran shows that Isa is God Surah 3:49, Surah 5:110 , or that Allah is three in one Surah 9:31.

These could  be T-shirt slogans or handout leaflets,

We might also have copies in relevant languages (Arabic) of John and Luke's gospels along with extracts of stories the Quran jumbles from the Torah.

We might even have QR codes for Bible downloads. Is there a book called The Book for Muslims? We might have the Prophesies of Moses (extracts from Torah) or those of Issa to give.

Handouts on Issa and the Quran and Musa (Moses) and the Quran or Quran and Injil could be very helpful to straighten out Islam's errors.

Is 'heaven or hell' a coin toss?

The crass understanding of Christian faith is that it is about these places, or states (usually 'places') 'heaven' and 'hell'.  Hell conjuring a Dante's Inferno picture by Botticelli,or Dore.

Thus, the non-Christian asks a confused question about 'going to hell' and asking if that's where the Christian thinks she or he is going, as though it  is some sort of unpleasant destination.

Firstly, we must ask what the person thinks is meant by 'hell' as they might understand Christian's to hold it.

Next we need to be able to layout that there are only two final places we move to post our demise. One is in eternal fellowship with our Creator and Redeemer, Yeshua the Nazarene, or...eternal not-fellowship with him, into a state of rejection of him.

The binary is a state of relationship (of love) and not a relationship (of rejection -- theirs of Christ) .

It's about the relationship, and as Yeshua tells us in John 14:6 

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

It is about being with the Father. If you reject him in this life, being with him eternally would be a misery. And because God made us like him, with significant choice power, the choice is ours and God will not over-ride it. Particularly in that we are made to know him yet we are so wont to refuse by our own pride.

Repudiating that position is what it is to seek Christ.

And, note the end state is not some ethereal cloud concert, it is the creation renewed where we are partners with God in his New Creation where sin (un-god-ness) is no more. 

The problem is not women pastors. It's pastors, period!

A modern (well, post second century) concept that comes to us from paganism (the priest), via Rome (the priest), through the reformation (Luther, Calvin and that whole merry tribe) where priest was transmogrified into the mythical idea of 'pastor' is the problem.

 This obliterated the polity Paul sets out in his letters and substitutes a governance system that neuters the church as an effective disciple-making family.

The point of departure for considering areas of service (ministry, deaconing) in the congregation (what ekklesia really means) is Galatians 3:28. Here there is no differentiation of persons by sex, status or ethnicity. None. Zip. Nada. Gone! Woman can speak in the congregation (1 Cor 11:5). Just don't be disruptive and rude (sigaō 'hold one's peace'), Also woman are not to import pagan teachings of the genetic primacy of women to denigrate men (after all we know that man was created first then woman drawn from him) or to inhibit procreation. Such as the pagan earth worshippers of Ephesus perhaps taught.

And bear in mind, telling women pagans to desist from over-bearing authority over men, does not thereby imply that men are the ones to do 'over-bearing authority to others.*

What the church is is a community of agape (1 Cor 13) meeting in congregation for teaching, prayer, etc, in edification...that all grow to maturity and become teachers (Heb 5:12). No hint of a "pastor" in 1 Cor 11-14. Rather we all contribute to one another.

Paul tells Timothy about the elders who look after the congregation for order and wisdom, and talks about men because they will be in a culture where prestige is the enemy of godliness -- just like today -- and older women (presbytis -- the feminine form of presbyter) to help younger women. And note this is not an exclusive area of service.

The main point is serving through supported shepherding (protecting), teaching and guiding of the congregation: a group, not a one-man command.

And if a congregation wants to hire a person or people skilled in the scriptures and learned, as a coach more than anything else, go right ahead, but they operate under the auspices of the elders. Not the reverse.

See Tom Wadsworth videos for more on the early church congregational practices.

*This brings up the unscriptual idea of "headship" which is over-read into the creation-generative statements about woman being created from Adam. Paul's foundational teaching about marriage is that each partner is there for the other. 1 Corinthians 7:4 

Raphael and the Philosophers

Francis Schaeffer referred to Raphael's painting "The School of Athens" in the detail of the gestures of Plato and Aristotle. Detail below.

 The Split Between Nature and Grace

 Schaeffer highlights the separation between the "universal" (represented by Plato pointing up) and the "particular" (represented by Aristotle pointing down). This split represents a failure to keep God as the creator of both, leading to an increasing separation between humanity and the Divine.

A friend put it to me that this was possibly not the references being made, rather, Plato is pointing up to "the good" and Aristotle is gesturing to the world as it is, founded on the "unmoved mover".

Together they are depicting a world in its base reality as impersonal, One that makes of personhood and thus man a final nullity.

The rest of philosophy seeks to deal with this nullity...culminating in Nagel's "The View from Nowhere" p. 225:

One of the difficulties is that the appropriate form of a subjective attitude toward my own future is expectation, but in this case there is nothing to expect.  How can I expect nothing as such? It seems that the best I can do is to expect its complement, a finite but indeterminate amount of something—or a determinate amount, if I am under definite sentence of death. Now a good deal could be said about the consequences of the finiteness of my future, but that is relatively banal and something most of us automatically allow for, particularly after reaching the age of forty. I am concerned with the adequate recognition of my eventual annihilation itself. There will be a last day, a last hour, a last minute of consciousness, and that will be it. Off the edge.

But the view of life and its base ontology from the Creation in Genesis 1, re-pictured by Paul in Romans 8:18ff: is Love, and the 'mission' of the Creator is to bring us into that realm of his Love through Christ.

 

This makes life and love meaningful because its reality is basic, unlike Plato and Aristotle in their bleak finally impersonal static base reality which admits no love, no passion and no fellowship.

 

Prayer Three Ways

The main speaker at our congregation today gave us a three-fold approach to prayer.

1. Protect 'sit at his feet' time: ensure slow time with our Lord.

2. Make small honest "daily bread" prayers.

3. Make shamelessly audacious prayers.

The last comes from, I think perhaps, missing the contrast between the reluctant friend at Luke 11:5 and the generous father in Luke 11:9.

Nevertheless a valuable practice, even if you make no other prayers in the day is a morning prayer pattern and an evening prayer pattern, By "pattern" I mean a short set of topics or themes that can very in content but stimulate a quick but meaningful moment.

Morning 

“Father in heaven, open my heart to your indwelling Spirit, fill me with trust in you and may I be a peacemaker in all my relationships."

Evening

"Father in heaven, thank you for rest at day's end. Forgive my sins of this day and bless those I've met either for good or not with peace and an inclination to Christ. [Then name those people] Forgive my impatience and selfishness and grow in me kindness and  wisdom."

A short 'elevator' prayer suggested by a friend is Psalm 19:14:

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

What about science?

One of the common objections to Christian faith is its asserted conflict with science.

Now, this is just about the initial challenge by the 'science-believer' "S" to the Christian"C"

S -- science disproves/is in massive contradiction of the Bible.

C -- really? How so?

S -- well take evolution..

C --  I suppose you are referring to the disparity between the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and the Genesis account of creation...have you read the creation account?  I mean from Genesis 1 to 3?

S -- [could answer no or yes, but either way this could follow]

C -- I can see you don't believe it, but I should tell you what I don't believe:

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis as an account of the origin of the biosphere as we know it. Nor the so-called "Big-Bang" theory, the Multiverse theory, the heliocentric planetary system, that the earth is a sphere or in the circulation of blood and the human brain.

S -- Wow you are really a fundamentalist. Why should I listen to you?

C -- Do you believe in those things?

S -- Yes of course!

C -- How quaint. Belief is not a scientific act. It is at best a religious act.

This is what I think about the factual credibility of these views.

The NDE has a very low confidence. It has demonstrated the operation of none of its assertions.

The BB theory has low to moderate confidence. The red shift does indicate expansion from our frame of reference but its regression to a singularity is speculative at best.

The heliocentric planet system explains phenomena with a very high level of confidence. My level of confidence in the observational data is very high for the globular form of the Earth, circulation of the blood and the existence of the human brain.

And you want to know why? Because we can see that the orderly rationally causal universe and our ability to prepositionally interrogate it is secured in the biblical creation account and demonstrated in experience.

Building for Community

A true community of Christians meets for the Pauline functions of edification in love, growth to Christian maturity and for teaching/learning (1 Corinthians 11-14).

Few buildings erected by congregations facilitate this.

Here's a plan of one that does.

 

Rutter's Clare Benediction

We sang this at Lenten Evensong:

May the Lord show his mercy upon you;
may the light of his presence be your guide:
May he guard you and uphold you;
may his spirit be ever by your side.

When you sleep may his angels watch over you;
when you wake may he fill you with his grace:
May you love him and serve him all your days
Then in heaven may you see his face.

With this variation, perhaps for my funeral

May the Lord show his mercy upon us;
may the light of his presence be our guide:
May he guard and uphold us;
may his indwelling Spirit be ever with us.

When we sleep may his angels watch over us;
when we wake may he fill us with his grace:
May we love him and serve him all our days.

Then in the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting be always with him
and all the saints in his new creation.

What about reading the Bible? Eh?

Over the past few years I've read the Gospels during Advent, Acts before Epiphany, then the remainder of the New Testament by Candlemas. Ive been blessed with the capacity to do this in a different translation each of the past 8 or so years.

I then seek to read the Pentateuch during Lent and other Old Testament sections, according to the Tanakh order up until the next Advent.

But, time to change.

My plan from next Advent is to go slower,

Month/Season	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
Advent*	Matthew, Romans	Mark, 1 Corinthians	Luke 2 Corinthians	John, Galatians, Ephesians
January	Mark, 1 Corinthians	1,2 Thessalonians 1,2 Timothy, Titus	John, Galatians, Ephesians	1,2 Thessalonians 1,2 Timothy, Titus
February	Luke 2 Corinthians	Philemon, Hebrews	Matthew, Romans	Philemon, Hebrews
March	John, Galatians, Ephesians	James, 1, 2 Peter	Mark, 1 Corinthians	James, 1, 2 Peter
Lent (or thereabouts)	Acts, Philippians, Colossians	1-3 John, Jude,	Acts, Philippians, Colossians	1-3 John, Jude,
Post Pentecost	Pentateuch	Revelation	Pentateuch	Revelation
To Advent	Prophets – former	Prophets – Later	Writings – Ps, Pv, Job	Writings – Dan - Chron

 * Gospels really on an 8-year cycle as per the pattern above.