How long is an age long, and why?

Part of the age issue is theological, which I don't think has attracted much attention.

Some thoughts:

Ancient (pagan -- or 'mimetic' and idealistic -- or exilic, such as Hinduism -- using Westphal's taxonomy) views of the age of the cosmos were of long ages ( far longer than modern), eternal existence or unquantified into myth. They all tended to dehistoricize the origin stories or myths (often accompanied by ludicrous and irrational causality and calling upon fantastical creatures -- perhaps related to pre-flood denizens?). That is, outside the flow of time we are in and thus unreachable by and uncontactable by us.

It is the 'uncontactable' that is important: they all thus tend to or actually de-personalize the creation event(s) and place the creating force at inaccessible remove from our life-world and historical flow. The 'gods' are incommunicado,  remote, and uninterested in the creature, except as fodder or slaves, it would seem

All of this serves to strand humanity in an impersonal cosmos with the only possible 'integration point' being, at best, fickle exploitative forces indifferent to man's good and often inimical to it. At worst enabling man's depravity, cruelty and assertion of determinative moral opinions 

Modern materialist 'long ages' touted as accommodating Evolutionary processes, but in fact far too short for NDE to produce the current biota, are in this league. As against the Genesis account (which extends across Genesis 1-3, IMO)  which places man for fellowship with God in the same time-space and historical flow that the stage of fellowship was created.

In this account God is communicatively with us and ontologically and actually present and active directly and personally in our time-space world, which he spoke (speaking the first gesture of fellowship) into existence. The creation is thus both historicized and personalized. It echos the love with which the Creator worked.

Furthermore, it grounds in what is truly real our epistemology, our ontology and our axiology, all in the God who is and who speaks, finally in his Messiah where the '2nd person of the godhead' takes on human form as the inheritor of the creation. The grounding is in our time-space shown in God's action in the days that we exist in without denigrating but rather exulting in them .They define the domain of his creatures who would reflect his image in his creation for them, in a resonant responsive relational congress.

So, modern 'long ages' push God's creative acts out of our sphere of action and history to de-couple the creation from our 'life-world' and intruding an existential barrier of an incomprehensible past unreflective of the warmth and care of the creation events. They make any interaction with God of dubious historical weight. This possibly invites back the Platonism which has dogged theology for too long and makes God personally differently from his revelation of self in Genesis 1-3. It detaches Messiah from the continuity of care (love) demonstrated in that account and fantasizes the New Creation, when the NT has it the palpable consummation of the Kingdom of Christ.

 

More cogitating on my previous note:

Long age views of creation displace God as he identifies himself in G 1-3 as the sole author of creation. They replace him with the creation itself in some way, To the extent that in TE he is merged into and becomes indistinguishable from the creation. However, long-age creationists similarly displace him more subtly because the bulwark against displacement is removed.

The work in days delineate God's self proclaimed relationship with the creation, and convey his identity as the one distinct from creation while able to, preserving that distinction, be its sole author.

This diminished identity then diminishes what it is to be in God's image and in communion with God...imperiling the communion we look forward to in the New Creation, which may now also be destabilized as the creation no longer bears the exclusive mark of God's love.

Other views challenge his sole authorship by deferring to views that were old when Epicureanism was current and use that story, which served to eliminate God as creator. These invented views then supplant the Biblical account, taking us somewhere else. At once God's identity and our relationship with both the creator and the creation as the creation is  changed. The priority that God reserves for himself in G 1-3.is now shared with or given to the creation.

The locus of 'creation' moves from the propositional and relation-building word of God, to the mute creation itself.

Christ's lordship is, as a result, diminished as the creation has  'done its own thing' absorbing God's work and anonymizing it, at best. In these terms the question as to what God did in the long age views remains unanswered or reduced to speculation adrift from revelation.

The various long age views fail to stand up to Nagel's forlorn description of life as a (meaningless) episode between two oblivions...despite that no sane person really lives this way.

Provisional thoughts, but may be of interest.

 

Engaging with Islam

Islam is a vigorous and ambitions religion about which most Western Christians know next to nothing.

A useful set of training seminars is available from Samuel Green at Engaging with Islam.

Other sources are Dr Jay Smith at Pfander Centre. and Dr David Wood at Christian Apologetics and Apologetics Roadshow.

Samuel Green's seminars are able to be used by groups to have parish-based training without the need to engage an external facilitator or trainer; although either could be helpful. 

How does God Work?

One of the theological puzzles we have is how does God work? How does he achieve his will with (currently) 8 billion people doing their own thing?

The two classical answers post Augustine and even more so post the Reformation are "Calvinism" (re-badged Augustinianism) and "Arminianism", which amounts to a reconfigured Calvinism.

So-called "Provisionism" so-branded by its opponents, is the classic Baptist approach to both soteriology and divine sovereignty in terms of creatures in his image ( which God must take seriously as he called it very good), I don't think takes much time, explicitly, over this issue.

In short terms, Calvinism holds that God 'meticulously pre-determines' all things whatsoever, down to the organization of sub-atomic particles (not that he knew about them, but it follows), This extends to who will be 'saved' and who will be 'damned'. Not a good look, in my view, based as it is on pagan philosophy mixed with a misreading of Romans 8-11 and a God who is as limited as is man.

Arminians have a similar end state but by a different route: God knows what will happen as from his timeless existence can see it into the future and chooses those who he knows will turn to him in Ephesians 1:13 style. These he reflexively chooses to save, the others not so.

This makes too many assumptions about time, God's state of being and what human volition truly is or is not.

I think there is a simpler approach.

Firstly, God and time.

Whatever we might think theoretically about time and timelessness, the creation account shows God present and active in the days of our lives (to quite a TV show), or to be more existential, the days in which we have our life-world, in which we live. So God is here, with us, in time, in our history and in fellowship.

How this works out.

Calvinists and Arminians and other determinists seem to have a small God, projected in terms of the nature of limited human decision matrices. But God is far bigger than that.

First off, God created all being we experience. We are in the restricted domain of his creating. A domain he is exhaustively knowledgeable of. Nothing that happens in that domain can catch him out. He will always have an answer to achieve his ends despite anything man can do or imagine.

So, he has no need to 'determine' anything. Given his knowledge of the existential structures and the nature of man he has created, nothing can out-wit him. He neither needs to determine (eviscerating our true freedom as in his image), or see into a yet to exist future.

Even with the vast number of consequential choice options on earth (say 5 to the power of 8 billion at each choice node) and along consequential choice pathways, the options remain a tiny number for God to comprehend and manage. As a participant in history, which he shows he is, he is well able to use focused interventions (those quiet prompts we might feel, for example or circumstantial events) to bring special circumstances to action, in reflection of Romans 8:28.

No matter what puny man with his tiny intellect and dull imagination: just above the level of a gnat's from God's perspective, can do, nothing can derail God's objective which he has for the ultimate good of those in Christ and adopted into his family.

 Soli Deo Gloria!

Pastor or Preacher or both together?

 Mr YouTube landed this podcast on my screen recently, about preaching and pastors.

 Some good points made, but others needed some pondering,

 Obviously he's on about "preaching", "pastors" and touches "teachers", inter alia.

 First thing I noticed was a tendentious mistranslation of kerux (κῆρυξ). Sochor (the presenter) claimed it was "a herald of divine truth; work of proclaiming the word of God", Now it  might have that meaning in Christian usage, but that is NOT the translation, Thayer, for instance, has: "a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a public summons or demand"
 
Simply a proclaimer...of the gospel to non-believers. I guess so many non-believers attended congregations as "cultural Christians" the gospel had to be preached therein.

Paul showed us how this works in Acts 17 talking to the pagans.

I wonder how many congregations have an active community outreach? You know, a booth in the main street, a drop-in coffee and book shop, a stall at community markets, evening courses in the local college on Bible, church history, "True Spirituality", "Inner Peace" the "twisted tale of Christian thought". Titles to be attractive in the marketplace of ideas.

Even a well-structured "in-drag" program of introductory courses could work.

However, Paul tells us what happens in a gathering of the saints in 1 Corinthians 14:26b-33: teaching, revelation, a tongue (foreign language needing interpretation), prophesy.

What we have habituated to call "preaching" is probably more like "prophesy" for exhortation. But note: lots of contributors! No 'main man' and all in love (ch 13) for edification.

Then we go on to "pastor".

This role is derived from the Roman Catholic priest and not from the NT elder, although happily some congregations do have elders. Unfortunately, too often they are seen more as a board of directors than the gentle spiritual guides of 1 Peter 5:5 and Titus 1:5. Note Titus talks also of female elders,

This has rather tendentiously (again) been rendered as "older women" but the word is the feminine  of 'elder'. The qualification of only one wife obviously is to ban polygamists. There were no polyandrous women so no need to mention.

Now, on to the meat of it.

Being derived from the priest, the modern "pastor" is not seen in the NT at all. It's a fabrication of men and has been the greatest dis-empowerer of the church over centuries. It's main function is to train the congregation that its members have nothing to say and to "outsource" its learning and giving an account, proclamation, etc. to that one man, while inhibiting the growth of people to true Christian maturity and for many to be teachers (Hebrews 5:12).

Daryl Erkel  has a good essay on this: "The Urgent Need For Reformation in Pastoral Ministry" at www.semonindex.net website.

The sameness of all religions?

A not uncommon remark today is that all religions are basically the same.

Frank Turek speaks to this claim. 

For Christians the first impulse might be to say "no they are not".

Better, IMO (and Greg Koukl's in his books "Tactics" and "Street Smarts") is to find out more.

Here's a paradigmatic pattern that might help.

Let's start with your first clarifying question:

> Really, sounds interesting, can you tell me more?

OR

> What do you mean by [that/'religion' and 'same'?]

This might bring some summary remarks about being kind and loving, or similar superficial existential affect. But what you are after is their basis for their claim. Their "why" they think that.

You might be able to respond: 

>Your view seems to be focused on a basic Christian structure, but that's not surprising because Christianity has influenced the Western worldview with varying success for many centuries. How would that apply to other transcendental world views?

The discussion could go in many ways from here.

A couple of points to keep in mind:

What 'religion' is.

The best general definition of religion is given by Clouser in his "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" page 18 in the edition I use. It is:

"the non-dependent reality on which all else depends"

In other words: the world-view that structures one's view/concept/understanding of man and his relation to the world/reality/what basically is, etc.

So you might ask the person to stand back from the word "religion" and suggest that it is:

1 - the basic conception one has of the nature of man/mankind/humanity, that either differentiates from the rest of the biota or merges into it, and

2 - the basic conception of 'reality' and man's/mankind's/humanities' relation to it.

and in so doing how it accounts for Schaeffer's "dilemma": that man (or the alternative locutions) is noble yet cruel. One could alternatively say: Magnificent, yet flawed. Loves yet hates! Is generous yet selfish.

It is in these basic conceptions that Westphal's tripartite taxonomy works: 

1. Exilic Religion

Core View: Takes life in the material world to be an exile from the soul's true home.

Salvation: The process of returning to that spiritual home.

Key Focus: The divide between the transcendent/spiritual and the physical world, often viewing the latter as fallen or a place of alienation.

 

2. Mimetic Religion

Core View: Views life as normatively controlled by a right, harmonious relationship with nature.

Salvation: Achieved by rehearsing or participating in the origins and depths of nature, often guided by myth and ritual.

Key Focus: Cosmic order, cyclical time, and living in accordance with the rhythms of the natural universe.

 

3. Covenantal Religion

Core View: Adds a historical dimension to the cosmological focus of mimetic religion.

Salvation: Finds ultimate meaning in historical interactions between the divine and humanity, giving specific historical context to human guilt, death, and redemption.

Key Focus: Time as linear, historical responsibility, and moral obligations to a personal, active deity.

(AI summary)

 

Now we can have a conversation about 'religion' and its connection with the world as it is. 

 

[BTW, I don't agree with all Greg's theology, but his apologetics approach is second to none, IMO.] 

 

 

 

 

Whence materialism?

Materialism (and Physicalism) collapse quite quickly into impersonalism.

A universe that "created itself", oxymoronic tangles aside, results in the denial of humanity as of real persons and reduces the person to a configuration of matter (atoms and photons, presumably). Not a person at all.

Yet, in this it fails to explain our transcendental conceptions and our immateriality in teleological self-consciousness that conceives of a real future. That is, a future we can reasonably contemplate and invest in by acting now. Axiological drives and indeed all metaphysics become epistemologically barren without an immaterial grounding.

But no one lives as this is so! 

Words to use and points of departure.

In the formal addresses given in congregational gatherings (what we irrelevantly call 'sermons' in church 'services') the speaker can take the opportunity to give tips on personal evangelism and apologetics.

Here are three recent examples I've heard, with excellent springing-points for steering the conversation.

1 - This morning in our assembly the speaker, discussing Luke 16:19, etc. (the rich man and Lazarus) and 1 Timothy 6:17 commented, inter alia, "the Christian vision is not anti-joy or anti-material. It is anti-idolatry".

2 -  A dinner talk recently attended had the speaker sketch the rich man of the above parable (a type of fable) as one "living his best life" or "he doing him" to adopt a modern trope. But it can only end in dissolution, in death, and achieve nothing! And how does one know it is their 'best life'. It is simply unremarkable to seek self! The talk was entitled "The paradox of being true to yourself".

3 - I wrote about this one a while ago. The talk was on Luke 13:1-5. The often missed point here..no, in my hearing the perpetually missed point, is that Yeshua explains the so-called "problem of evil/suffering".

This is only a problem for non-believers, which is rarely explored with any rhetorical power: the disjunct between desire and experience show there is a problem, a big problem brought by our alienation from our Creator. It shows us the consequential state of the cosmos and who we are, prompting the only resolution of repentance (and commitment to our Creator in Yeshua -- who is the Creator incarnate).

Each of these can be used to steer a conversation and used as a springboard for some conversational evangelism: connecting the gospel with the fruitless conceptions of the world most cultures engender.