Knowledge and wonder #1

The trans-continental journey aboard a train of thought often begins with a nagging idea in the back of one's mind. Wouldn't an eternal heaven become boring after the first few millienna?

If all the things that one might know is a finite set, then surely at some point I shall know them all. Even allowing for the possibility that in my glorified body there are some things that I may still be too dense to understand, the set of things that I may ever know will still at some point become known by me. Where's the fun in that?

Until, I began to wonder if my current experience of learning about God will hold true in heaven too.

When I was a child, I used to think I knew a lot about God. But then I started to go to Unichurch. After a few years there I thought I knew most things there were to know about God, then I went to bible college. Then I thought I knew most things you should know about God, then I started having to rely on Him in full-time ministry.

So, I considered the idea that my experience would continue into eternity. That as quickly as my knowledge of God might grow, my understanding of how much more there was to know about him would increase at an even greater rate.

At the moment, the only way that I can understand enjoyment in heaven is to consider the idea that my wonder would increase more quickly than my knowledge.

How do you think of heaven? There are plenty of bits and pieces in my mind to do with knowledge and wonder that haven't quite fallen together yet, so I'd love to hear your crumbs of wisdom.

The problem with envy and jealousy...

... is that they take a dissatisfaction with God and the circumstances that he's placed you in and project them onto a (often innocent) third party.

They turn love to hate. (Genesis 4, 1 Sam 18:6-9)
They distract disciples from following. (John 21:18-22)

Cain's problem wasn't Abel, Saul's problem wasn't David and Peter's problem wasn't John. Their problem was with God, and simply focussed on someone else.

Nasty, nasty stuff that, by the above definition, crouches at the door just when you're most down.

Summary of the 3-part gospel cure:

1. When we're dissatisfied or in trouble, the gospel says come to God directly to lodge your complaint. Let God have it (in both senses), don't take it out on someone else.
2. The gospel teaches us that God owes us nothing, but has given us grace upon grace upon grace. He doesn't owe us, he owns us.
3. The gospel is the message of a pearl more valuable than anything you've ever known. A person you'd sell everything you own in order to know. In a heartbeat and with a smile on your face.
   
   If you know Jesus, you've got the pearl. Why be jealous of someone holding a bag of rubbish? (Philippians 3:7-8)

John Piper on Preaching - An index

Many of us were greatly blessed by God yesterday as John Piper shared with us what he's learned about preaching. It was awesome. Far better then even his evening address.

Here's some introductory comments that he made on the topic of preaching.

He then gave us his thoughts on 5 key areas of preaching. Its aim, its content, the manner of your preaching, preparation for preaching and the act of preaching.

These are just notes and at times fail to capture the depth and significance of each of the points that he made. Mulling over them and their depth may well be very beneficial. A quick scan will likely miss much of the significance of his address.

A perhaps confusing conclusion to an inadequate essay

Having looked at history through the eyes of Barth, it seems that he understood his great battle to be with prolegomena to Scripture. His view of revelation and his Christology were driven by his attempt to escape from the epistemological presuppositions of his time and to establish a pure way of allowing God to speak. McCormack rightly makes the point that while Schleiermacher was concerned to establish the independence and absoluteness of religion, Barth was seeking to establish the independence of revelation. In this, the two men find both their similarity and their difference. In his desire to remove God’s Word from underneath the scalpel of historical criticism, Barth separated the Word of God from the Bible and located it in an experience of the Bible instead. In this, Barth was unable to himself escape from a philosophical prolegomena which he himself had inherited from Kierkegaard, despite distinguishing himself from some aspects of it. Having charged others with the crime of the possession of a theological prolegomena, Barth himself is not immune to the charge.

Thoughts on process

I'm sure plenty have thought these thoughts before, but I've not, and so I'm going to post a bit about them.

It's interesting that God chose to act within a history. Within time. He didn't simply make heaven in an instant and keep things rigidly that way for eternity, but instead he decided to stretch that creation process out over the course of human history. Not only so, but God's saving action is recorded for us in an unfolding of his character that took place over centuries.

It's also interesting that God is not bound by this process-type-thing of history that we're stuck in. He's all those 'omni-' words. Impassable and all that. Particularly, he's not bound in time as we are.

So why did he stretch things out into time like he did? What are the implications of it? How can he interact in time if he's omni-everything? (Ie, how could he ever 'react' to something we'd do? Or change his mind, or be surprised?)

So, I'm going to have a crack at thinking through a few implications of this reality over the next few posts. You guys all with me? Going to come help out and correct my thinking where it's messed up?

Great! See you soon. :) I'm off to Splendour.

Competitiveness and Scripture

For a little while now I've been thinking about a question: What does the Bible say about competitive sport?

A very difficult topic, because it doesn't say anything directly on the topic.

Thanks to Dave, I've recently read an essay on the topic which was quite helpful. It essentially saw sport as a neutral activity, but one in which it is very easy for sin to be masked as acceptable.

I'll be posting more on this as I work through it, but my current thought is about Sport as a revealer. I don't think that sport necessarily produces greater ungodliness, but is instead a revealer of ungodliness that is already there. In short, it reveals the person underneath.

This, however, can also be a beautiful thing when great sportsmanship and honourable play are demonstrated, or pursuit of excellence without cheating despite great pressure to do so. The high-emotion arena of sport is "a true revealer of character" as the great Stan Coombs once said.

What do you think about competitive sport, is it a good part of our created humanity? Or just pride dressed up in respectability?

A clarification of a fun discussion

There's been a big bunch of discussion on all things sin and depraved going on lately between Simon (here and here + comments) and Nathan (here and here + comments) and myself.

My thoughts (here and here + comments) aren't actually centred on quite the same focus as Simone and Nathan's, from what I can tell. My point is merely to give an anthropology which gives an acceptable approximation of the Scripture's testimony about us. In so doing, I've dealt with the area of sin as a matter of necessity.

My point, though, hasn't been to create a method for dealing with temptation. No how-to guides here.

And so, in this way, I say a hearty 'amen' to many of the points made by both Nathan and Simone. Particularly, to many of the things that Nathan said from Romans 6 in his post on righteousness.

I'll try to engage with their thinking on temptation (which, to me, seems ultimately to be the context for Simone's thinking) and the 'stance' of the Christian life in general (which seems to be the context for Nathan's thinking) in the next couple of days.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug? (part 2)

Sorry about that break in transmission.

To add to the weight of Kung's theory that we should all just get along, Karl Barth wrote a letter to Kung (that Kung has placed in the front of his book) saying that what Kung says about his doctrine is all accurate. He's not twisted anything that Barth believes.

Sounds good, doesn't it! A protestant and Catholicism agreeing on Justification!

Unfortunately, it's not as good as all that.

Firstly, Kung's version of Catholicism isn't what the infallible words of the Pope (backed up by the council of Trent) actually teach. It's the opinion of some modern (and more Biblical) Catholic scholars, but not the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. More's the pity.

Secondly, the bits of justification that Kung is dealing with are so narrow as to make it pretty easy to get agreement on it. They essentially are both anti-Pelagian, and that's about as broad as the agreement can be said to extend. Alistair McGrath has noted that in this sub-section of doctrine, even Calvin and the Catholic church could be said to agree! Even I agree that Manchester United play football, kinda.

Lastly, the implications of the doctrine of justification, all the things that are implied by it, are massively different across the protestant and Catholic divide. While the words may be the same, the implications are a world apart.

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.

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.

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.

An interesting question to ask

From Genesis 3:

He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

What an interesting set of questions!

Firstly, why did God ask "Who told you? instead of something like "How do you know?"? (Note the correct use of question marks) The question doesn't even confirm Adam's statement that he's naked. What exactly was God anticipating in asking which person made the assertion? What is the answer to it?

Secondly, how does the first question give rise to the second? What is the necessary link between the two? If you play the imaginary mind-game that God didn't know what had happened, why is this the obvious second question after asking the first?

I'll post some thoughts in the next couple of days.

Why has the church failed???

Why does society still suck? Why doesn't the gospel convert everyone who hears it? Why the denominational wars and so many people who proudly wear the badge 'Christian' and yet seem to deny it by their actions?

Emil Brunner has an interesting answer:

No Christian possesses absolute faith, no one is is really wholly converted, if regard these expressions empirically.

It also forms part of the incognito of Christ that the final significance, the absolute turning point, which His Cross means, can never appear historically in its effects.

It's all because of the 'incognito' of Christ, his veiled-ness. Reckon he's onto something?