Something to Think About

I found this on www.christian-thinktank.com a while back. Pretty good stuff:

“A Few Ethical Vectors for Christians:

1. The God of Truth is NOT afraid of our questions.
2. Our God is God of the whole person: will, emotions, body, even our intellect.
3. God is seriously committed to truth–whatever the cost…as His children, so should we be.
4. Taking a person’s questions seriously is an act of respect and love, even when they don’t really take them seriously.
5. Distortion, misrepresentation, or deception through omission are unethical.
6. When we don’t know the answer, we must say ‘I do not know’…
7. If a sincere question (as a felt need) comes our way, we should attempt to meet that need through answers, resources, or encouragement to patience.
8. We are not allowed to be contentious or to argue for argument’s sake.
9. We should be changing the shape of eternity, one conversation at a time.
10. Sometimes the best answer is silence.
11. Prov. 18:13: “He who answers before listening — that is his folly and his shame.”
12. “Slander” includes misrepresentation.
13. Chronic ignorance can become irresponsibility, and chronic irresponsibly can become a moral failure.
14. It is not a sin to have unanswered questions and agonizing doubts–you can raise more questions in 5 minutes than you can answer in 50 years!
15. It is generally dishonest to reject a belief which you have N+1 arguments for, on the basis of only N arguments against (all argument weights being equal)…it is also somewhat foolish.
16. Unanswered questions CAN be a source of emotional pain.
17. This is NOT A GAME we’re in.”

Been a while

It’s a while since my last post. I promise I haven’t given up. Lately I’ve been real busy with school, and well, school. I’ll get back at it soon.

Biblical View of Sin: An Excerpt from “THIS PLACE IS A MESS: DIFFERING CULTURAL VIEWS OF SIN AND THEIR RESPONSES”

Excerpt from a paper I did for Systematic Theology 1. In this paper I explored differing worldview ideas of sin and morality. Then I tried to logically follow their outcome from a biblical perspective. This excerpt briefly defines the biblical view of sin and its effect. It is by no means exhaustive. (Citations were left out of this blog post, but I will send them to you if asked.)

When discussing the definition of sin according to biblical Christianity, it is also important to first establish what is meant by “biblical Christianity.” For the purpose of this work, biblical Christianity lines up with evangelicalism. One that identifies with biblical Christianity will therefore be considered “evangelical” and is “one who believes and proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Further, the gospel of Jesus Christ states that he “died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day.”
According to biblical Christianity, sin refers to the pervasive corruption inherited from Adam and Eve at the Fall as recorded in Genesis three. Rather than believe God, man chose to believe God’s enemy, and thus acted independently from God. Because of this usurpation of God’s authority, mankind experienced spiritual death and opened the floodgates for corruption to infiltrate the entire creation. Nancy Pearcy sheds light on the impact of the Fall when she states, “Just as we insist on the cosmic scope of Creation – that all creation came from God’s hands – so too we must insist on the cosmic scope of the Fall. Because humans were created to be God’s deputies exercising dominion over creation, their sin had a ripple effect that has extended into the natural world.”
Sin is the power that holds mankind in bondage to rebellion from God. It is acting in opposition to God as determined through Scripture. That which is sinful is not determined by the individual, community or circumstances. Mankind does not become sinful through the corruption of others as taught in Islam. Sin is real; not a mere illusion. In Christian Theology, Millard Erickson defines sin as “any evil action or evil motive that is in opposition to God. Simply stated, sin is failure to let God be God and placing something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy.”

09/10 Bible Diagnostic test

Click on the following link to complete the survey:

Click Here to take survey

Brief Defense Against Radical Postmodernism

Radical postmodernism is characterized primarily by its rejection of objective truth and acceptance only of subjective truths. Truth no longer guides and determines the individual’s journey; rather the individual’s journey determines what is true. In Love Your God with All Your Mind, J. P. Moreland described the Christian overwhelmed with postmodernity as “the Christian narcissist” that “brings a Copernican revolution to the Christian faith.” This Copernican revolution of the Christian faith replaces God and His purposes with the individual’s personal fulfillment. (Moreland, 89) Millard Erickson, in his Christian Theology, described the postmodern elements of the following three disciplines as: 1) The postmodern form of literary criticism is deconstruction in which meaning is determined by the reader rather than the author, 2) The postmodern philosopher utilizes neo-pragmatism; that is to say truth is determined by its usefulness to the community, and 3) In history the postmodern new historicism allows practitioners great margins of imagination in the study of history. Following I briefly comment on each:

First, deconstruction is the approach to literary criticism that disregards the author’s meaning and intent and allows the reader to provide the text’s meaning. The problem this poses for biblical criticism is that God’s word is undermined when emphasis is placed on the reader’s interpretation over God’s intent. Biblical truth can be denied without mentioning God or the Bible. However, this form of literary criticism self destructs. Those that first proposed deconstruction wrote their arguments. When others criticized them, they responded with frustration that their critics misunderstood what they were saying. (Erickson, 170) Those that propose deconstruction contradict their on argument when they are criticized.

The next element of postmodernism is the philosophical approach of neo-pragmatism. Neo-pragmatism defines truth by is usefulness to the community. What works takes precedence over what’s right because what’s right is subjective. However, this overlooks the fact that success can be as subjective as ethical truth. According to neo-pragmatism mass murder could be justified by a determined idea of success. Additionally, truth as determined by the community is a form of objective truth.

Finally, the formation of history by the imaginative interaction of the new historicists is a dishonest approach to history. No person can interact with history any more than their personal experience of being present or the evidence allows. New historicism takes great liberties with historical fact, while overlooking or denying what is established.

All in all, postmodernism initially presented an intimidating argument against objective truth, but has proven to be quite weak. Its elements tend to self-destruct as seen in the three presented above.

Theodicy – Snack-bite Evaluation of 3 Views (Christian Theology, Millard Erickson)

The problem of evil presents one of the greatest theological/philosophical and practical challenges to the Christian faith. Erickson notes that even the most intellectually adept Christian colleges find this to be one of the “most vexing intellectual problems facing them in connection with their faith.” (Erickson, 439) Additionally, I can confirm that the problem of evil is one of the greatest challenges to high school students. This frequently brought up during the classes that I teach.

Erickson presents three solutions to the problem of evil that he describes as attempting to ease he tension between the elements of the dilemma. These elements are: God’s greatness (omnipotence), God’s goodness (benevolence), and the presence of evil. (Erickson, 439) The three solutions Erickson presents are:

1- The rejection of God’s omnipotence

2- Modifying the concept of God’s “goodness”

3- The denial of evil

The first solution, rejecting God’s omnipotence, falls under a view called finitism. This view is adopted by open theists, process theologians, and subscribers to dualism (two equal powers: God/good versus evil). Rather than God being the all powerful being that accounts for and will overcome evil; God is limited in knowledge and power against evil. Erickson points out that such a view gives account for evil, but has failed to overcome evil and does not give any assurance for the future. (Erickson, 441)

The second solution modifies the concept of God’s “goodness.” This view states that everything God determines is good; God determines everything (man’s will is not free), therefore what man calls evil is actually good. That which is good is such as determined by God, not man. Humanity’s problem of evil is a matter of perspective. However this use of “good” is equivocal. What is considered “good” for God to do, doesn’t necessarily carry over to man. There is inconsistency between God’s attributes and His will. (Erickson, 444) This seems to be more in line with the Islamic view of Allah.

The third and final solution to the problem of evil is an outright denial of evil. Erickson presents this view as from the teaching of Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), but this is also true of the Cosmic Humanist worldview. This solution states that material existence is an illusion; therefore any experience of evil in the material world is also an illusion. Evil, including death, does not really exist. However, Erickson points out that the persistent denial of reality does not avert that reality. Also, the so-called illusion of evil must be answered.

Senior Exit Survey

Follow the link to complete the survey:

Fill out my form!

Monasticism

I haven’t posted lately, so I thought I’d put up a discussion board post I wrote for my Christian History class:

Many sought the monastic lifestyle in response to the comfort which led to apathy experienced by the church after the time of persecution. They viewed this as extremely detrimental to their faith. However, some like Paul (not the apostle) and Anthony sought this lifestyle before the persecutions ended. Anthony sought to flee the temptation of his former wealth initially, and later to rely solely upon God’s provision. If they owned nothing of themselves to rely upon, who else but God was there?

The coenobites understood that their service to God included serving other people; however, the people to be served were the other monks within their community. Their monastic lifestyle removed them from the influence of the world, and they served their community in labor, prayer, and teaching.

In the lives of these monks we see their total dedication to Christ; misguided, but often sincere. They were greatly disciplined. Our society is not unlike those that fled the apathetic lifestyle of post-persecution Christianity. However, in stead of fleeing such influence, we must engage culture for the sake of the Gospel. Combining their dedication in prayer, study, contemplation, etc. with a true concern for lost souls is the best means of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Numb Hands on the Body of Christ

One night I woke up and both of my arms were completely numb up to my shoulders.  I managed to sit up, but I have no idea how.  Then came the pain! You know…slight twitch that feels like a lightning bolt.

What does this have to do with the Body of Christ?  Well, I’m glad you asked.  We all play our part. We are the Body. Not all have the same role. Some are hands, feet, behind the scenes organs, etc. You get the picture.

Recently, I was in a discussion with a guy about the suffering of children. The poor and starving kids with distended bellies. Absolutely pitiful. No doubt a horrific situation. He made the angry half comment, half question, “I don’t get it! Why does God let this happen?!”

Then it hit me. He doesn’t let it happen. We do.  “Well, He could stop it!” comes the protest. He has chosen to stop it…through the Church, the Body of Christ. Yet we blow hundreds of billions of dollars on useless Christmas gifts. We’ve been blaming others  for our sin since the beginning (Adam blamed Eve, even  God for his sin – “That woman You gave me…” Gen. 3:12).

Have we gone numb?

We need to repent and practice true religion (James 1:27).

- Gino

P.S. I wanted to add a photo, but decided against it. Yet, do this: google image search “suffering”. Look at the first photo of the child and the vulture.  Stare at it. Think about the heat. Feel the dirt and dead grass. I heard a story about that photo. I can’t remember what happened to the child, but I know the photographer commited suicide some time after.

Christian Response to Pluralism

Another Apologetics assignment on religious pluralism.

Coming from a thriving youth ministry that had more than the average “on fire” teenager did not prepare me for the ministry I was entering as new teacher in a Christian school. This new environment had students from nearly 100 different churches, ranging from Catholic to charismatic. Many students had grown up in church and this school, and therefore, they knew the lingo. However, spiritual apathy and outright rejection of Christianity permeated this environment. All of that to say that even in a Christian school, students are influenced by postmodernism and pluralism. They are beginning to challenge the infant faith in which they have grown up and test the waters of popular philosophies and religions.

The two most prevalent objections I hear to Christianity are, 1) the problem of evil, and 2) the exclusivity of Christianity. For the sake of this assignment, I will primarily address the latter in this posting.

Two days ago, I was in a discussion concerning a specific example of the problem of evil with a tenth grade class. It seems they are unable to process this issue in light of the Fall and the subsequent entrance of death and corruption (and the ensuing effects). They always fall back to specific examples. “Explain how God could let this happen to me or my friend.” I would never want to make light of such raw examples, but many are the effects of living in the corrupted creation with corrupted creatures.

In the midst of this discussion, the girl that brought up the topic made the statement, “Don’t give me the Christian answer. Give me the real answer.” This reveals her knowing that objective truth exists, and yet not associating it with Christianity. To her there are other options.

We began discussing the nature of truth and how Christianity is not just another equal option on the “truth buffet”. We have previously discussed the fallacious parable of the blind men and the elephant, and so I reminded them of the error in this type of thinking. That is the narrator’s claim, that no one blind man (or religion) can stake a claim to the objectively true viewpoint, is in itself a claim to an objectively true viewpoint. It is self-defeating. Additionally, I explained that only by omitting the truth claims of the various world religions, or at least by necessity redefining them, can we make them work together. It is kind of like asking for a nice, big cheeseburger and excluding the cheese and/or the burger. By stripping away such necessary components, you are no longer dealing with that religion (or cheeseburger).

When we look at the state of the world and honestly compare the various religious views of the world, we see the following:

1. All religions make propositions concerning the human condition and how to improve it. (Social, political, economic, racial, and religious change for the better)
2. All religions make exclusive truth claims. (e.g. Jesus is Lord vs. Jesus was only a prophet; There is no god vs. 1 God vs. many gods vs. everything is god)

All that is left is to compare these exclusive belief systems and see which one makes sense of the world as we know it. Christianity provides for the evil and suffering in the world. Christianity provides for the design found in the natural world. Christianity provides for the removal of guilt and redemption of man in Christ. Christianity makes sense of the world as we know it. Only Christianity makes sense.