Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug?

Hans Kung, in his doctoral thesis "Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection", proposed that the Protestant Karl Barth was in 'fundamental agreement' with the Catholic teaching on the issue of Justification.

Essentially, he's saying: Why are we all arguing? Protestants and Catholics have overdone the differences between us just in order to keep a difference between us. Why not recognise that we're more similar than we think and just get along?

To be continued... chatting with my wifey. Sorry to keep you in suspense.

Darn I'm wrecked

Insufficient sleep makes Peter something something.

What's going on inside (part 2 of 2)

See part 1 here.

This helps us to understand something about ourselves and sin.

When people talk about 'working out who you are', my answer was: I know who I am, a dirty, rotten sinner and pathetic to boot. So the process of self-discovery isn't actually a beneficial one.

Using the tripartite view of a Christian that we looked at in part 1 means that we can now investigate something of person 1 from the messed up combination that we have now become.

Example: A person has a strong desire to lust sexually. Now the devil never created anything good, but only twists something good that God has made. My hypothesis is that the desire for something wrong has its basis in a good desire that's been twisted.

It's like archery. When you shoot and hit the bullseye, it's fun for everyone. When that good thing gets pointed in the wrong direction, someone's bum gets an extra hole.

So, the process of trying to work out your God-given passions becomes a process of working out something: What good thing am I desiring that my sinful nature is twisting and making evil?

So, in the case of lust, an example could be that the person desires a fulfilling and intimate relationship, but is reaching for something else to scratch that itch, or reaching for it in a wrong way.

I find this way of thinking helpful because it allows me to give my humanity, sin and redemption the full recognition they deserve:

1. My humanity, because I recognise that God created me so well.
2. My sin, because I have messed up so thoroughly something that was so good.
3. My redemption, because it ... (this is a fuzzy area in my thinking, so I'll leave it until I've sorted through the implications of my thoughts.)*

Lastly, it helps me to work out how I can rightly 'be myself'. It doesn't mean just doing what I feel like. It means unravelling the threads that have been knotted by sin, correcting yourself and working to be the man I was created to be with the help of Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

*Yes, the redemption part hasn't been well-worked in this theory. Contributions towards that would be appreciated.

The art of not knowing everything

It's a lot harder than it sounds. I'm very tempted to assume that my perspective on life, the world and everything is sound, consistent and the most perceptive and worthwhile that there is. This occurs on multiple levels.

I've found that I have a habit of trying to defend my paradigm of thought, instead of opening myself up to understand things from another's perspective, and thus enriching my thinking. But of course, it's not just about enriched thinking, but enriched relationships where I can really respect the other person's views and treat that person and their thoughts with tenderness and love.

I find that the less I am protecting myself or my paradigm of thinking in any given conversation, the more genuinely I engage in meaningful interaction with that person (given a safe context, of course).

What's going on inside (part 1 of 2)

Over the last year or so, I've been reflecting on how I've often heard about the two natures struggling within us. That is, our sinful, fleshly nature and our new life in Christ by the Spirit. What I've realised is that I think that I've not heard as much as I should have about the third nature that we have, and how it relates to the others. That is, my original creation in the image of God, sustained by His common grace.

What I'm getting at is that:

1. I was created good. *
2. The good image of God was twisted in sin, and more as I sin more. **
3. I died to the second life, and was raised with Christ into a new life. ***

Thus, I actually have 3 natures, in a way. With me so far? I'll go further on the significance of this soon. (Or you could just spoil it for yourself and see what Simone reckons here. Or you could be patient and wait 'til tomorrow. I'm not going to decide for you.)

________________________________________

* Insert trite prooftexts here.

** No prooftexts required for an evangelical readership.

*** Also, perhaps, able to be viewed as a redemption of the initial nature, though exactly how that works is as yet unclear to me.

Is everything? v1.3

I've decided that I'm going to reduce the scope of my claims. For now.

At this point I'm willing to assert that:

Everything has both existence and significance. When people confuse one for the other, or only see one of the two aspects of an entity, thinking becomes unclear.

In this schema, the 'existence' is what you might call the absolute aspect, while the significance is the relative aspect. As such, I'm trying to assert that both Arthur and Nathan are correct, and both incorrect. I think.

Less ambitious, and yet, perhaps still controversial?

I think I'm...

slowly becoming an adult, like Mark Driscoll is.

It's scary, though not in a "I'm being forced to read a Joyce Meyer book" kind of way.

Is everything? v1.2

Ok, so let's move away from ethics, which is not really the arena in which I want to develop this thought, but rather in the arena of ontology.

So, we have a vase. It is sitting on a table. Its existence and location is absolute. Yet, its significance is relative. Is it a Ming dynasty vase, or a cheap copy? The difference between the physical virtues of the two is negligible, but the significance is not.

Is the table able to take its weight? The significance of the objective existence of the book is entirely relative.

Or, perhaps, you could take words. A word on a page is a bunch of particles that absorb more light than the more reflective particles against which it is set. It's just ink blobs on a page. The significance of that word is, however, entirely contingent on whether there is a person standing and looking at it, whether they can speak the language and whether or not they know that the word is Bruce Winter's photocopy code.

On a note I think Arthur will like, I think that this type of thinking affirms the inherent, absolute value of things while acknowledging that all things occur within the context of a relational context created by God. I'm not sure that Platonism does justice to this, while Joyce Meyer gets closer to the Mark.

A little too much, perhaps?

I was at college today, when I overheard a discussion regarding an unnamed theological college student (not at QTC) who had what he thought to be a more culturally relevant translation of Genesis 2:23.

It involved an elegantly subtle translation of "zoth hapa'am" (loosely transliterated) which he rendered "Phwoooaar!!!".

This piece of brilliance was followed by a masterful work of literary art, using wordplay drawn from current Western parlance, substituting the word 'boner' for 'bone'. Sadly, I wasn't able to hear the rest of this 'translation' and so am unable to reproduce it accurately here.

Despite the obvious maturity of this scholarship one could, perhaps, accuse the student in question of having an over-realised sexchatology. I keenly await the publication of this forthcoming translation.

It's very difficult to comprehend

I find researching assignments can be really hard. One reason is that when I'm reading a book, instead of really thinking through the author's point of view, I'm spending about 30% brain power on working out whether or not this particular book is worth reading for the assignment or is a waste of time. Especially for Joyce Meyer books. This means that my actual comprehension of the book is lowered significantly, and thus my speed in finishing the chapter. Ala Mark Driscoll when he hits a hobby horse in his sermons.

Any tips on this sort of thing? Or should my research gathering techniques just be better?

Tumbleweed...

Far out. What a boring place to be. Even I get here and think how boring it is that nothing's changed since I was last here.

Rest assured, normal service will resume soon.

A tale of two Heads of the Church

From the 2nd Vatican Council. (summarised, with comment)

Sin must be expiated.

This must be done on this earth by sorrows, pains, works, prayers, etc.

Otherwise, many years of painful 'cleansing' in purgatory is necessary.

The concept of indulgences, which reduces time in purgatory, has come down by divine revelation. (This means secret apostolic traditions known only to the papacy. They just didn't tell anyone else for a thousand or more years.)

Even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment or consequence for it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. (And so Jesus didn't do enough by dying, we still have to pay.)

Whereas Jesus:

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

...and his disciples said:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Oh the sweetness of Scripture.

Non-spoiler title for pure gold

Despite being seen elsewhere, it's just too good to not post. Click the image for a more readable size.

xkcd

Is everything?

I've got a theory that I'm working on, and I'd like to throw it open to the general public to 'road-test' it, as it were. So this is one of those where I'd love some critique, feedback, etc.

Proposition:

Everything is both relative and absolute. The problem with much thinking is that it recognises the one and either ignores or denies the other.

Sounds profound, hey? But is it? *raised eyebrow*

Great. Mr. "I am the law" can't.

So what's going on in Romans 3:19, eh? Glad you asked. I think...

It's difficult, you see. First, the text:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

In the context, it is very difficult to understand what that sentence is getting at. The 'easiest' reading, is if it assumes that everyone is under the law. If so, then that makes the second half makes sense, because obviously the whole world would then be accountable to God.

Having said that, this 'easy' reading is actually also very difficult because it means that you have to imagine Paul using the phrase 'under the law' to include everyone in the whole world. This is a difficult feat, especially in the context of Romans.

So, which is right? Are those 'under the law' just the Jews, or everyone?

Currently, I lean towards an idea that Jeremy Nicholas Wales has proposed. The previous chapter (2) of Romans spent a fair portion of its time establishing the idea that even those not under law were accountable to God for their actions. This part of chapter 3 is concerned with rebutting possible Jewish protestations that they ought not to be liable to judgement for their actions.

Once you've put those two together, you've covered the world. Jews are liable, non-Jews are liable. That pretty much covers it.

Hence, the point of v19 is to say that now the final piece in the judgement puzzle has been placed (ie, the Jews) it's clear that the whole world fits into the picture.

What do you think?

A New Perspective

Can I just say that there is nothing better than when God convinces you of how good he has been towards you? I have an amazing life, absolutely and truly blessed. Yet, despite this, it is very easy to be down on myself, my life and my future.

Having had a morning of being encouraged with thoughts in my head from God about being appreciative instead of negative and worrying, my tops little wifey read out some great stuff from Ecclesiastes to me while driving to college.

It's great, because this kind of godliness helps me go forward and serve others by taking me a little more away from my own little world. Another blessing.

Words

There is something about them. You can almost argue from the existence of words to the existence of God. Of course, you can't really do this. However, let me elaborate.

Facts are things that are objectively so. The existence of a rock in space-time, for example. A word, however, adds meaning to a fact. Not necessarily spiritual meaning, or moral meaning or even relational meaning, but meaning. It takes the bare fact of existence and forms it into an idea. They cannot help but narrate the universe as we know it.

Much like Calvin's view of revelation, in a way. God's words narrate his works. Words give meaning to actions.

Now this is only a baby thought, and I need interaction to refine and develop it more.

Thoughts please!*

*Yes Simone, I'll even welcome your overtly Platonic thoughts too. :P

More gear from Jo-Cal

"But let believers accustom themselves to a contempt of the present life that engenders no hatred of it or ingratitude against God."

What a strange man. The first half seemingly so ascetic, and the second counteracts it. But I wonder how much? I shall read on...

Update: Having read on, he seems to be saying that even though, in the perspective of the next life, this life is lacking, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for what it does contain.

Fo shiz, Jo-Cal!

Some interesting vocabulary in my Calvin readings at the moment. Obviously Jo-Cal was at street level. Talking about the proceeds of indulgences:

"which were filthily spent on whores, pimps, and drunken revelries."

Acts: History for history's sake?

So, what do you think? Are some bits of Acts just there because it's helpful for us to know what happened in some parts of the early church? Or is every event there trying to get across some truth that will instruct and change the hearers?

In essence, what is the rhetorical force of the more 'difficult' bits of Acts? Some don't seem to readily give up application. It's a discussion which brings up all sorts of things, including what you expect that God would have included in Scripture, and why.

Debate. Discuss. Rant!

I'll join in soon. Or when no-one else does.

Gary Millar in a nutshell

What did he say?

1. Look at, nut out, understand and sit under the text.
2. Preach the gospel that it testifies to.

'nuff said.

Gary pushed the centrality, supremacy and potency of the gospel in a way which I'm not sure that I've heard since the early days of unichurch or the last time I was hanging around Graeme Goldsworthy. Not even in good churches have I heard someone speak this way. An enlivening and rebuking experience. It took me back to some heady days.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #15 (Talk on Titus 2)

Not to teach sound doctrine, but to teach what accords with sound doctrine! (v1)

4 things about this gospel that Paul is teaching:

1. People change all the time, so we need to be on our toes and change.
2. Know our people.
3. Start where people really are rather than where we think they are. Otherwise you'll distort the gospel of grace.

Gary's admission:

I found it difficult at times to preach the gospels and the crucifixion. Why? I realised that it was an expose on my own sin. I found that what I liked to do was to take difficult things and make them clear. So I felt good about myself for helping people understand difficult things. The cross was too easy...

'older' Christian generally just means older, in our normal sense.

Preaching to 'older' blokes means encouraging them to keep going.

A danger of a high view of preaching is that this is the only place where teaching happens. And yet Paul encourages the older women to teach the younger. Make sure that we're encouraging this as it's vital. Truth is best taught in close relationship.

Can't stop working at connecting with people, because people are always changing.

Self-questions

• Is my Bible teaching's application specific enough?
• Do I understand the culture well enough?
• Do I know what people are going through at the moment?
• Do I understand the challenges of individual stages of life well enough?
• Do I care enough to find out?
• Is my speaking health-promoting or damaging at the moment?

Why is zeal now an insult? The element of a gospel life that is scary to the outsider is the zeal for good works.

We MUST preach the gospel of grace because it produces Godliness and passion. Preaching legalism does NOT produce lasting change. Legalism and guilt-tripping people does NOT produce lasting change.

Future grace by Piper

Past grace -> respond with gratitude.

Future grace -> respond in faith, living for him.

Look forward to the grace that is to come. Keep going because Jesus is coming.

Get on with a gospel-speaking, straight-talking, hard-working ministry, despite all the rubbish that will come. All of ministry is the gospel, its power, not ours, and God working through it.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #14 (Deut 31-34)

Big Idea:

Good news, bad news (Moses dies, Joshua raised up)

Be strong and courageous

Atonement

What does the future hold?

• Failure
• Death of leader
• New leader coming in
• Sense of foreboding about the future
• 'anxious chapters'
• hints that God is in control, has a plan, that Israel has a hope and that one who will exceed the works of Moses will come.

Route to Christ:

Expose the problem?

Fulfilment?

Attributes of God?

The whole point of this exercise is not saying that this is the way to preach Deuteronomy, but that this method will help you to preach in a Biblical theological framework in a way that gets the OT text to set the agenda, and so that the God who talks can change lives.

Your final package may look completely different to this, but that's because of the magnificent depth of God's word.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #13 (Deut 27-30)

Big Idea:

God will change them

-> Love God and live

Route to Christ

Fulfilment

Consequences

Gospel:

Gary Millar: Liveblog #12 (Deut 12-26)

Big Idea:

Here's how to live

Separated and Consecrated

God's instructions for all of life?

How do we deal with such big chunks?

Nearly impossible to go through it line by line, so how do we get through it? Try all sorts of things!

Read short extracts with a commentary at the end.

Read 6 or 7 carefully chosen extracts that give people the big idea.

Try everything and anything, we just want people to be exposed to the text.

Route to Christ:

Fulfillment in Christ

Expose the problem

Which do you go, the "now you're in Christ live this way" angle, or the "Christ is the fulfillment of all this" angle?

Gospel angle:

Romans 12:1

Gary Millar: Liveblog #11 (Deut 7-11)

Big Idea:

Love in response to grace (how do we deal with the fact that this looks very similar to 5-6?)

Alternative Big Point:

Golden calf incident, so could point out that God is the god of second chances.

God gives fresh starts.

Route to Christ:

Highlight the attribute

Follow the action

Follow the plan

Gospel angle:

Plenty of options

The big push in all of this is to get the main point from the OT and not bolt an NT passage onto it.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #10 (Deut 5-6)

Big Idea:

Obey in response to grace

Route to Christ:

Point out the consequences

Highlight the category

Gospel angle:

Show that this is the way God works in all of Scripture.

Titus 2

Gary Millar: Liveblog #9 (Deut 4)

Bid idea:

We have a God who talks! (So listen)(very unique!)

Route to Christ:

Follow the action

Gospel angle:

Hebrews 1

John 1

Gary Millar: Liveblog #8 (Deut 1-3)

Big Idea:

God's Grace

Our Rebellion

Route(s) to Christ:

Expose the problem

Highlight the attribute

Follow the plan

Gospel angle:

Problem-Solution method

Gary Millar: Liveblog #8

A fantastic blog post referenced by Gary Millar.

The Day of the Triffids; the Wrath of God?

Some other points he made:

• I'd rather have a God who is more holy, more outraged at sin and more free than I am.
• If we understand our God, if we know all his ways, and if we can predict all his thoughts, then our God is too small.
• Should we apologise for the God of the universe? . . . Never.
• God's resolution for his holiness and his mercy is in Romans 3.
• We ought not only to be able to sit ok with God's wrath, but sit breathless before what he has done!
• The God we can never completely work out, because he's God.
• Without understanding the wrath of God we cannot hope to understand the massiveness of what's happening at the Cross.
• Our amazingly creative God came up with a way to be both holy and merciful.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #7

Moving farewell of Moses in 34.

God's moving and gracious allowing of Moses to see the land.

Moses talked up as greatest Israelite who ever lived.

Never one like Moses has come again.

But one like Moses will come.

Dying outside the land, though. So we need one better than Moses.

Moses brings a close to the pentateuch.

Is the 'in Christ' language of the NT a recapitulation of the 'land' image of the OT? Is it possible that the locus of God's presence and blessing is now in Christ as opposed to in the land?

Gary Millar: Liveblog #6

31 - Massively damning statements from God on how they will reject him and therefore be rejected by Yhwh. In black and white, it is told to them that they won't obey. The condemnation is very damning, and Moses is clear that they will need an exile and a return from exile which will involve the circumcision of hearts.

Who's going to write the second verse to 'ascribe greatness' ?

32 - Thus a song of Moses that is witness for Yhwh and against Israel.

32:44 - Only mention of atonement. Not mentioned anywhere else. But a hint of the coalescence of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These two paradigms do work together.

So obey, because these laws are your life, your key to life.

So how do we preach it/ how was it heard by those hearing? Especially given that the failure is certain?

It's an edgy book. There are 2 ways to live. Choose life. But even if you choose blessing, it's more than likely that you're going to stuff up somewhere along the line.

Set up, so that it is for those on the edge of the land. But Moses also sets it up carefully that it was for everyone who lives in the land.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #5

Deuteronomy 30:1-14

It's a big chiasm, and it's all centred around v6. It's the big, big thing. This is also the conclusion of the sermon (While 30:15 to the end of the chapter is the conclusion to the book)

Verses 11-14 are actually happening not on the day Moses is speaking this sermon, but happens when Yhwh circumcises their hearts.

In that time, the word will be in our mouths, and close to us. This helps make much greater sense of the passage.

aha! #2

So, picking up on my previous post, I've realised that I didn't use Paul's sermon well as the basis for my gospel appeal.

Though perhaps with reasonable excuse, as Nathan graciously said, I didn't exegete the things about God's imminence in Acts 17 sufficiently. There is so much in there about both being created for God and His desire to be known by us. Coupled to this Paul's appeal to repent of ignorance and come to know God truly, there's great beauty in the grace of God as expressed here.

Who cares? Well, I think the problem is that my talk's appeal for response was primarily based on not being found to be opposing God. Now this is a good motivation, but would have been far stronger when coupled with the appeal of the God who created me to know him and wants all people everywhere to know him.

Hmm... I'd have to do some more thinking if I was going to really develop this one properly. Ideally, I'd have preached the passage in 2 or 3 talks. We do what we can.

Aha!

I've worked out what was wrong with my sermon on Sunday.

The gospel wasn't worked out through the text rightly. Details to follow.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #4

There are 2 questions which are slightly different.

1. How does the text relate to Jesus?
2. How do I preach the gospel through this text?

They're not the same. Gary was saying that the first is somewhat academic, while the second is far more related to how a listener is going to treat their kids when they get home from church.

Have I pointed people to what God has done in Christ as the solution to all our problems.

Have I pushed people to throw themselves upon God for mercy, or just told them to try harder.

You haven't preached the gospel if the essence of the message is 'be like', then you haven't preached the gospel.

Have we pushed people to the grace that does all the work of bringing about godliness?

Recover the rhetorical impact of the text

We must help the audience feel what the text is doing, not just conveying the intellectual content.

We must give the people a reason to listen. Don't assume that they'll listen just because they've shown up at church. The first 90 seconds is the most important part. We must justify to the person walking in off the street why they ought to listen.

We must connect with people. Speak to the people who are actually in front of you, must know who they are.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #3

Christ centred preaching is not about trying to find a reference to Jesus in every text, but to show how the text stands in relation to Christ.

Boring preaching is a sin. Why? Because your audience is made to feel guilty. They feel guilty for not being as excited about the gospel as they should be. They feel the boredom is their fault.

7 Ways of moving to Jesus from the text:

1. Follow the plan (Here's the first bit of the plan, here's where God followed on in order to get to Jesus) (follow the story. Take the scenic route. God did this, then this, then this, then this)
2. Expose the problem
3. Explain the category - Leviticus is there to explain how sacrifice works.
4. Highlight the attribute. (demonstrate something of God)
5. Trace the fulfillment. (More like Star Trek than 1, beam up at promise and beam back in at fulfillment.)
6. Focus on the action ("this is what God does" - Like the attribute one, but with actions)
7. Point out the consequences. (If you are x to God, then y will happen)

Gary Millar: Liveblog #2

hehehe...

The two Israelites weren't the best spies ever. They'd never been in a city! Most likely, they're walking around the city wide-eyed and pointing, strangely enough ending up in the house of a prostitute... Innocently... Right...

Excellent spying. Really. I wonder how Jericho's rulers knew exactly which house to go to when they decided to get a hold of them...

Rahab's the only one who speaks about Yahweh.

Gary Millar: Liveblog #1

Basic convictions about Bible teaching.

1. When we preach rightly, it is God speaking
2. Preaching is not simply the conveying of information, but with the purpose of changing people.
3. That last point he massively ties in with spending a lot of time in the Biblical text. For the preacher/teacher mainly, I think.
4. Must preach within a biblical theological framework. (wrt death and resurrection of Christ, salvation history, etc)
5. Must preach the gospel.