Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales (trekearth.com)
1. September 27, 2010
The new coat of arms of the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. I am emailing them now again, this time higher up the chain, way higher, asking for my official paperwork. This will be the third email, or emails perhaps, in three weeks I have sent.
A certain relative said (paraphrased), 'Why don't you apply for a job there and state that your doctorate was confirmed by email (which it was)'.
2. September 18, 2010
My new website featuring my new e-book. The site is not perfect and is evolving.
thekingpin68.com
3. September 14, 2010
Predestined (PhD)
In my mind, the concept of compatibilism, although the term is not used,[1] is implied in Scripture. The subject of predestination for salvation, for example, is a complex theological discussion and could be a topic for a Biblical Greek thesis.[2] However, within Ephesians 1,[3] ‘predestined’ which is προορίσας[4] within Ephesians 1: 5,[5] and in the context is ‘predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’[6] and προορισθέντες[7] at Ephesians 1: 11, as in ‘we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose’[8] appear to support Reformed compatibilist notions. Strong defines proorizw[9] which is the root word connected to the forms of the word in Ephesians 1, as to limit in advance in figurative terms,[10] and to predetermine, determine before, ordain, and predestinate.[11] Bauer defines the root word as meaning to decide before hand, predestine of God and applies this definition to Ephesians 1: 5 and 11.[12] Minimally, there appears reasonable textual support from this verse[13] that could support a Reformed compatibilistic perspective on how God chooses persons for his ultimate culminated Kingdom.
There are incompatibilist, evangelical counters to the Reformed view.[14] Ephesians scholar Francis Foulkes (1989) explains that predestination is not in opposition to human free will.[15] The gospel of grace was offered to all persons,[16] and those persons that accepted the message were elected.[17] Foulkes insists that the human faith required rests totally on God and not in self.[18] Foulkes then shifts the issue to the idea that election is not simply salvation, but also holiness of life.[19] He defines predestined as ‘marked beforehand.’[20] It is understood as a divine, eternal plan.[21] Foulkes presentation is commendable and reasonable and although his definition is similar to that of Strong[22] and Bauer,[23] he appears to downplay a deterministic aspect of the word.[24] I do not agree, but inevitably, even with the use of linguistic sources there is room for debate and I lean toward a compatibilistic understanding based on Ephesians 1.[25] Browning, an Oxford New Testament scholar,[26] also sides with a view similar to Foulkes noting that God has a plan of salvation for humanity and persons may freely accept or reject this plan on a personal basis.[27] Within Reformed theology, election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect,[28] as opposed to primarily foreknowledge[29] of human acceptance of the gospel message within a Reformed, Calvinistic framework.
Schelling also presents a view on predestination[30] that human beings act today as they have always acted since ‘eternity’ and at the beginning of creation.[31] Persons continue to act wickedly because in eternity human beings took a stand in ‘egotism and selfishness.’[32] Within this view, passion and desire which can at times go wrong, represent freedom in the nature of human beings.[33] All persons are born with a ‘dark principle of evil attached to them.’[34] Persons can be good, even with this darkness through ‘divine transmutation.’[35] This non-traditional perspective would view human beings as predestined to commit evil[36] but allows for God to still work good within persons.[37]
I reason that the Bible when taken in proper context,[38] provides some important insights[39] into the logical and gratuitous problems of evil, and I favour the Reformed perspective strongly without negating the other views, including incompatibilism, in an unfair manner. Although I am a theist, I readily admit that atheists too have some good insights[40] at times, as for example Flew[41] and Mackie[42] make some reasonable criticisms of Plantinga’s work as discussed in Chapter Two.
[1] The term being a modern philosophical one.
[2] This is not a Biblical Studies PhD and I was therefore advised to limit my Biblical work within this thesis, but I seek accuracy in my Biblical interpretations.
[3] A key Chapter for Reformed views on compatibilism.
[4] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).
[5] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).
[6] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1322).
[7] The Greek New Testament (1993: 655).
[8] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1322).
[9] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[10] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[11] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[12] Bauer (1979: 709).
[13] I realize many other verses could be examined concerning this subject. I provide Ephesians 1 as a prime Reformed example within a limited space allotted for this topic.
[14] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[15] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[16] Foulkes (1989: 55). Browning (1997: 301).
[17] Foulkes (1989: 55). Browning writes that the New Testament does not state that those that reject this offer are damned to hell. Browning (1997: 301).
[18] Foulkes (1989: 55). Frankly, Foulkes does not explain how this works within his incompatibilistic system.
[19] Foulkes (1989: 55). I can agree that God does work out holiness in his people.
[20] Foulkes (1989: 56).
[21] Foulkes (1989: 56).
[22] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[23] Bauer (1979: 709).
[24] Foulkes (1989: 55-56).
[25] I can still consider incompatibilistic notions and other perspectives, when needed.
[26] Browning (1997: i). Browning provides an Anglican perspective.
[27] Browning (1997: 301).
[28] Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
[29] Thiessen (1956: 344).
[30] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[31] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66). Creation is not passive and is dynamic and in constant activity. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxiii). This non-passive activity included rebellion within Schelling’s view.
[32] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[33] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).
[34] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).
[35] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[36] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[37] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[38] Franke (2005: 9). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 4 Volume 1).
[39] Admittedly they are non-exhaustive. This is a major reason why we have discussions in regard to theodicy as God is not crystal clear concerning the issue in Scripture.
[40] I personally relate to many of the objections raised against an all-powerful, good God in this world filled with evil. I simply reason God has perfect motives and a track record in Christ, whereas an atheist would have unbelief. This does not mean we do not share a mutual hatred of much evil and suffering.
[41] Flew (1955: 150-153).
[42] Mackie (1971) in Plantinga (1977)(2002: 32-33). Mackie (1955)(1996: 250-253).
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.
THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Pea green sea, Solva, Wales (trekearth.com)
Road to the Beacons, Brecon Wales (trekearth.com)
Quarry houses, Brecon Wales (trekearth.com)
Brecon, Wales (trekearth.com)
Brecon
East Central, Wales (trekearth.com)
Wales
Cardiff, Wales (trekearth.com)
Hoode City, Wales (trekearth.com)
2. September 18, 2010
My new website featuring my new e-book. The site is not perfect and is evolving.
thekingpin68.com
3. September 14, 2010
Predestined (PhD)
In my mind, the concept of compatibilism, although the term is not used,[1] is implied in Scripture. The subject of predestination for salvation, for example, is a complex theological discussion and could be a topic for a Biblical Greek thesis.[2] However, within Ephesians 1,[3] ‘predestined’ which is προορίσας[4] within Ephesians 1: 5,[5] and in the context is ‘predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’[6] and προορισθέντες[7] at Ephesians 1: 11, as in ‘we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose’[8] appear to support Reformed compatibilist notions. Strong defines proorizw[9] which is the root word connected to the forms of the word in Ephesians 1, as to limit in advance in figurative terms,[10] and to predetermine, determine before, ordain, and predestinate.[11] Bauer defines the root word as meaning to decide before hand, predestine of God and applies this definition to Ephesians 1: 5 and 11.[12] Minimally, there appears reasonable textual support from this verse[13] that could support a Reformed compatibilistic perspective on how God chooses persons for his ultimate culminated Kingdom.
There are incompatibilist, evangelical counters to the Reformed view.[14] Ephesians scholar Francis Foulkes (1989) explains that predestination is not in opposition to human free will.[15] The gospel of grace was offered to all persons,[16] and those persons that accepted the message were elected.[17] Foulkes insists that the human faith required rests totally on God and not in self.[18] Foulkes then shifts the issue to the idea that election is not simply salvation, but also holiness of life.[19] He defines predestined as ‘marked beforehand.’[20] It is understood as a divine, eternal plan.[21] Foulkes presentation is commendable and reasonable and although his definition is similar to that of Strong[22] and Bauer,[23] he appears to downplay a deterministic aspect of the word.[24] I do not agree, but inevitably, even with the use of linguistic sources there is room for debate and I lean toward a compatibilistic understanding based on Ephesians 1.[25] Browning, an Oxford New Testament scholar,[26] also sides with a view similar to Foulkes noting that God has a plan of salvation for humanity and persons may freely accept or reject this plan on a personal basis.[27] Within Reformed theology, election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect,[28] as opposed to primarily foreknowledge[29] of human acceptance of the gospel message within a Reformed, Calvinistic framework.
Schelling also presents a view on predestination[30] that human beings act today as they have always acted since ‘eternity’ and at the beginning of creation.[31] Persons continue to act wickedly because in eternity human beings took a stand in ‘egotism and selfishness.’[32] Within this view, passion and desire which can at times go wrong, represent freedom in the nature of human beings.[33] All persons are born with a ‘dark principle of evil attached to them.’[34] Persons can be good, even with this darkness through ‘divine transmutation.’[35] This non-traditional perspective would view human beings as predestined to commit evil[36] but allows for God to still work good within persons.[37]
I reason that the Bible when taken in proper context,[38] provides some important insights[39] into the logical and gratuitous problems of evil, and I favour the Reformed perspective strongly without negating the other views, including incompatibilism, in an unfair manner. Although I am a theist, I readily admit that atheists too have some good insights[40] at times, as for example Flew[41] and Mackie[42] make some reasonable criticisms of Plantinga’s work as discussed in Chapter Two.
[1] The term being a modern philosophical one.
[2] This is not a Biblical Studies PhD and I was therefore advised to limit my Biblical work within this thesis, but I seek accuracy in my Biblical interpretations.
[3] A key Chapter for Reformed views on compatibilism.
[4] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).
[5] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).
[6] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1322).
[7] The Greek New Testament (1993: 655).
[8] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1322).
[9] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[10] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[11] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[12] Bauer (1979: 709).
[13] I realize many other verses could be examined concerning this subject. I provide Ephesians 1 as a prime Reformed example within a limited space allotted for this topic.
[14] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[15] Foulkes (1989: 55).
[16] Foulkes (1989: 55). Browning (1997: 301).
[17] Foulkes (1989: 55). Browning writes that the New Testament does not state that those that reject this offer are damned to hell. Browning (1997: 301).
[18] Foulkes (1989: 55). Frankly, Foulkes does not explain how this works within his incompatibilistic system.
[19] Foulkes (1989: 55). I can agree that God does work out holiness in his people.
[20] Foulkes (1989: 56).
[21] Foulkes (1989: 56).
[22] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).
[23] Bauer (1979: 709).
[24] Foulkes (1989: 55-56).
[25] I can still consider incompatibilistic notions and other perspectives, when needed.
[26] Browning (1997: i). Browning provides an Anglican perspective.
[27] Browning (1997: 301).
[28] Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
[29] Thiessen (1956: 344).
[30] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[31] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66). Creation is not passive and is dynamic and in constant activity. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxiii). This non-passive activity included rebellion within Schelling’s view.
[32] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[33] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).
[34] Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).
[35] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[36] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[37] Schelling (1845)(1936: 66).
[38] Franke (2005: 9). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 4 Volume 1).
[39] Admittedly they are non-exhaustive. This is a major reason why we have discussions in regard to theodicy as God is not crystal clear concerning the issue in Scripture.
[40] I personally relate to many of the objections raised against an all-powerful, good God in this world filled with evil. I simply reason God has perfect motives and a track record in Christ, whereas an atheist would have unbelief. This does not mean we do not share a mutual hatred of much evil and suffering.
[41] Flew (1955: 150-153).
[42] Mackie (1971) in Plantinga (1977)(2002: 32-33). Mackie (1955)(1996: 250-253).
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.
THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Pea green sea, Solva, Wales (trekearth.com)
Road to the Beacons, Brecon Wales (trekearth.com)
Quarry houses, Brecon Wales (trekearth.com)
Brecon, Wales (trekearth.com)
Brecon
East Central, Wales (trekearth.com)
Wales
Cardiff, Wales (trekearth.com)
Hoode City, Wales (trekearth.com)
39 comments:
Having once been a strong (modern) "Calvinist" (heading towards 'hyper-calvinism'), but not ever satisfied with the extra-biblical formulations of limited atonement or double predestination as proclaimed by the classic "Reformed" confessions and traditions, I find the work of T.F. Torrance in this area to be incredibly insightful.
Predestination for Torrance is the election of Jesus Christ as the vicarious man who represents all of humanity in His very being as the incarnate Son. In this sense, God has "elected" humanity as a whole in the Person of the God-man Jesus Christ.
Of course there is much, much more that needs to be said about this understanding, but that is the gist of it.
Torrance is a product of the Reformation (particularly the Calvinist strain), but he clearly distinguishes himself from the heirs of Calvin with regard to election and predestination. I think Torrance's understanding (which is very profound and all-encompassing) is faithful to God's integrity as God (the Doctrine of God is hugely important for Torrance and forms the basis for most of his thought) and to the biblical concept of "freedom"--both God's and our own as image-sons.
Of course, people like James White would have a cow over the idea that Torrance's understanding has anything to do with Calvin or Reformation Theology. But you know me well enough to know that I don't really care what "fundamentalists" (of any theological persuasion) think about me. :-)
We must take eschatology seriously. And if the purpose of God was determined by Him before anything ever was, then our understanding of His purposes must be in accord with His nature, with who He is in His very being as God before anything ever was.
Anyway, we are not limited to the Arminian and (modern) Calvinistic traditions of predestination and election. Torrance (who's not alone, of course) provides a third option (and the best, in my opinion).
Okay, back to the school work and my job!
GGM
Having once been a strong (modern) "Calvinist" (heading towards 'hyper-calvinism'), but not ever satisfied with the extra-biblical formulations of limited atonement or double predestination as proclaimed by the classic "Reformed" confessions and traditions, I find the work of T.F. Torrance in this area to be incredibly insightful.
Predestination for Torrance is the election of Jesus Christ as the vicarious man who represents all of humanity in His very being as the incarnate Son. In this sense, God has "elected" humanity as a whole in the Person of the God-man Jesus Christ.
Of course there is much, much more that needs to be said about this understanding, but that is the gist of it.
Torrance is a product of the Reformation (particularly the Calvinist strain), but he clearly distinguishes himself from the heirs of Calvin with regard to election and predestination. I think Torrance's understanding (which is very profound and all-encompassing) is faithful to God's integrity as God (the Doctrine of God is hugely important for Torrance and forms the basis for most of his thought) and to the biblical concept of "freedom"--both God's and our own as image-sons.
Of course, people like James White would have a cow over the idea that Torrance's understanding has anything to do with Calvin or Reformation Theology. But you know me well enough to know that I don't really care what "fundamentalists" (of any theological persuasion) think about me. :-)
We must take eschatology seriously. And if the purpose of God was determined by Him before anything ever was, then our understanding of His purposes must be in accord with His nature, with who He is in His very being as God before anything ever was.
Anyway, we are not limited to the Arminian and (modern) Calvinistic traditions of predestination and election. Torrance (who's not alone, of course) provides a third option (and the best, in my opinion).
Okay, back to the school work and my job!
GGM
Hey Kingpin,
I'm not sure if my comment went through, so here it is again.
Having once been a strong (modern) "Calvinist" (heading towards 'hyper-calvinism'), but not ever satisfied with the extra-biblical formulations of limited atonement or double predestination as proclaimed by the classic "Reformed" confessions and traditions, I find the work of T.F. Torrance in this area to be incredibly insightful.
Predestination for Torrance is the election of Jesus Christ as the vicarious man who represents all of humanity in His very being as the incarnate Son. In this sense, God has "elected" humanity as a whole in the Person of the God-man Jesus Christ.
Of course there is much, much more that needs to be said about this understanding, but that is the gist of it.
Torrance is a product of the Reformation (particularly the Calvinist strain), but he clearly distinguishes himself from the heirs of Calvin with regard to election and predestination. I think Torrance's understanding (which is very profound and all-encompassing) is faithful to God's integrity as God (the Doctrine of God is hugely important for Torrance and forms the basis for most of his thought) and to the biblical concept of "freedom"--both God's and our own as image-sons.
Of course, people like James White would have a cow over the idea that Torrance's understanding has anything to do with Calvin or Reformation Theology. But you know me well enough to know that I don't really care what "fundamentalists" (of any theological persuasion) think about me. :-)
We must take eschatology seriously. And if the purpose of God was determined by Him before anything ever was, then our understanding of His purposes must be in accord with His nature, with who He is in His very being as God before anything ever was.
Anyway, we are not limited to the Arminian and (modern) Calvinistic traditions of predestination and election. Torrance (who's not alone, of course) provides a third option (and the best, in my opinion).
Okay, back to the school work and my job!
GGM
Dear, GGM triplets
Thanks very much for your participation, as always.
Seriously, I am sorry for your issues with Blogger in trying to comment, but your patience is appreciated.:)
'We must take eschatology seriously. And if the purpose of God was determined by Him before anything ever was, then our understanding of His purposes must be in accord with His nature, with who He is in His very being as God before anything ever was.'
God is eternal.
He knew/chose his elect prior to creating them.
He regenerates and moulds the elect, in Christ.
Persons regenerated, are without force or coercion.
There is a limited and not libertarian human freedom, as persons freely believe as God guides them.
Human nature is fallen, but the Holy Spirit changes/enlightens persons enough to believe and follow.
Therefore:
This is compatibilism.
Man, I'm having errors too. Trying again:
First, I would say that Election is probably the most difficult doctrine for Christians to accept.
Second, here is an interesting article:
The Danger of Dominion Theology
GGM and The Jeff, blame Blogger.:)
But again, my apologies.
At least one of GGM's attempts was hung up with Blogger's new SPAM security measure, but I of course published his comment once I viewed this taking place.
Blogger Beta and its security measures became standard Blogger. At least with my blogs, anyway.
Another example of how the few spammers and trolls out there cause counteractions that effect many of us.
Just a quick note while finishing up work:
While I would agree with some of what the article suggests, I would absolutely disagree with the strict dichotomy that the author presents between Heaven and earth. Cornelius Plantinga, Mike Wittmer and Bob Robison at Vangaurd blog (to name just a few) show us how to have a healthy "earth-wise" perspective in light of the Lord's promise to redeem/recover this creation.
While the author is correct in distancing himself from the "dominion theology" of Gary North, et. al, I believe he is dead wrong in his understanding of God's purpose for this creation. This world is our home and the Scripture is repleat with promises to restore this creation for His people. The kingdom of God is presently here spiritually in His people (the Church) and will be physically here when Jesus returns and consummates the eschatological purpose of the Trinity.
GGM
'First, I would say that Election is probably the most difficult doctrine for Christians to accept.'
Reasonable, thanks, Jeff.
Dave Hunt from Jeff's link:
'Prophetic scriptures are either denied, interpreted as having already been fulfilled (much of Revelation happened at A.D. 70, for example) or spiritualized. The church is Israel, which no longer has any place in prophecy as a nation; Armageddon is the ongoing battle between the forces of light and darkness; the Antichrist is a spirit not a person; we are already in the Great Tribulation and the Millennium both, etc. Instead of exegeting the Bible, there are new revelations. For example, the brochure for the Atlanta '86 conference for pastors, held at Paulk's church with speakers such as Oral Roberts, Tommy Reid, et al., declared that Christ's return was being held up by the reluctance to accept new revelation. The latter are presented by a new class of prophets who cannot be judged but must be obeyed.'
Revelation needs to be studied in historical, grammatical context.
Much of Revelation will be found to be figurative and symbolic.
Therefore:
It is difficult to form dogmatic theology concerning secondary issues via the book.
Honestly, as much as I like my own comments and agree with them (I did, after all, write them!), I'm not that infatuated with them that I need to see "thrice written"! :-)
Of course, as infrequently as I've posted lately, maybe you should post my comments in triplicate so it looks like I've actually participated!!
GGM
Just a quick note while finishing up work:'
This blog can be a 'Mars bar' type of a break for you.
Dr. Kingpin's blog for work, rest and play, all through the day.
Hunt:
'There are many factors that make up the growing apostasy and seduction of the church. One of the most alarming, least understood, and fastest spreading errors is the teaching that earth instead of heaven is the ultimate home for the church, and that her goal is to take over the world and establish the kingdom of God.'
Our goal is not taking over the world.
But,
Heaven 1 is paradise, resting place of the spirits of believers, which I tend to take figurative literally. I acknowledge that some within the Church do not see it as a place. Even last Sunday my assistant pastor seemed to view paradise as metaphor for the resurrection and that saved departed spirits simply were with Christ. But with Luke 23: 43, I lean toward believing that in that very day Jesus and the criminal were in a realm of Paradise. 2 Corinthians 12: 4 describes a place Paul was at it seems, as opposed to a future place. This reminds me of Paul in Philippians 1: 21: 26. To be in this place was to be with God/Christ.
Heaven 2, although described in figurative symbolic terms appears to be a restored heaven and earth (Revelation 21-22, 2 Peter 3).
'While I would agree with some of what the article suggests, I would absolutely disagree with the strict dichotomy that the author presents between Heaven and earth.'
Yes.
'Honestly, as much as I like my own comments and agree with them (I did, after all, write them!), I'm not that infatuated with them that I need to see "thrice written"! :-)'
As I noted by email, if you delete the extras, I will delete the remnant and you will have one comment.;)
On the funny side some of my local readers may think you are the new 'American fundi' with the long comments instead of that 'Jeff' guy.
Russ;)
'Of course, as infrequently as I've posted lately, maybe you should post my comments in triplicate so it looks like I've actually participated!!
GGM'
You and the Jeff are always appreciated.
Cheers.
Hi,
Nice post, I like this post.
I’ve added your blog to My Friend's Blog Roll at
http://satellitesnews.blogspot.com so would you put my blog too, on you...
You can get healthy traffic from us and our visitors can get relative and useful information form your site.
Hope you would add my blog.
Thanks a lot. Keep blogging....
Done, Michael.
Hope you are well in India.
Cheers.
NT Wright teaching pastors how to talk sensitively about heaven.
I got thinking about near-death experiences. I think in many cases God may be using these events (glimpses into paradise) to help bring awareness, repentance and restoration to someone that may not be actively following God, and/or as a witness to others. There are also hellish NDEs. I find the reports described quite fascinating - especially how nearly similar NDEs can cause opposite reactions in different people, suggesting that hell may be a state of mind or being that is unable to cope with the reality of paradise-heaven.
Dr. Gary Habermas is an expert on NDEs
From listening to him over the years, there are heavenly and hellish NDEs and ones of various religions, apparently.
Thanks, Saint Chucklins.
'I got thinking about near-death experiences. I think in many cases God may be using these events (glimpses into paradise) to help bring awareness, repentance and restoration to someone that may not be actively following God, and/or as a witness to others.
Reasonable.
'There are also hellish NDEs. I find the reports described quite fascinating - especially how nearly similar NDEs can cause opposite reactions in different people, suggesting that hell may be a state of mind or being that is unable to cope with the reality of paradise-heaven.'
Yes, I have heard like from Habermas and other reasonable sources.
Some of the more fundamentalistic sources insist on a plain literal hell of fire in the middle of the earth.
I am extremely skeptical this exists.
Hi,
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made for this blog. I Really like this..
I have added your blog to Blog Roll at
http://electronicsexpress.blogspot.com. So would
You put my blog too; our visitors can get relative and useful information form your site.
I will hope you would add my blog.
Thanks
We are now linked, thank you.
No, Jeff is the undisputed "king of comments"! And I mean that in a good way, of course. :-)
I've never fully investigated NDE's before because I've never had any reason to do so. But from what I have heard and read either they are so disimiliar from one another such that they can't be talking about the same "place" (if "heaven" is so different for everyone who has NDE's then how can we even suggest that a single "place" called Heaven really exists?), or they are so much like the traditional, American (or Western) conceptions of Heaven and Hell anyway (based on a wooden-literal interpretation of the Bible) that there is no need to believe that these people really "went" anywhere--they are just suggesting things they (and the masses) already take for granted for the most part.
As for non-NDE's, honestly, do we need someone saying that he spent 23 minutes in hell or 90 minutes in heaven just to tell us what most of us (of course, I'm not one of them) already believe the Bible teaches. (And if anyone can take Wiese's incredibly ridiculous account of hell seriously, then, as the saying goes, I would try to sell them some oceanfront property in Arizona...but they would have probably already bought it multiple times from someone else!)
Honestly, where's the discernment in the Church? Do we really need to read of someone's "visitation" to heaven or hell via a NDE or "being caught up in the spirit" (or just wasted on Vodka and 'Ludes) for us to believe? Is the Scripture not good enough for us? What did Jesus say? ""If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the Scripture), neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead." Jesus isn't talking about a NDE here--he's talking about a real, physical resurrection! If someone doesn't believe the Bible, then there is no biblical reason to believe that a NDE or some other means of being transported into heaven or hell is necessary to proclaim the Gospel.
Do I believe that NDE's take place? Sure. But I believe these are psychological experiences, not ontological experiences. Do I believe people like Wiese? Absolutely not! These guys (and ladies) are either deluded or self-conscious heretics who want to prey on the gulible so that they make money and gain popularity--they have their reward!
Do I believe in miracles? Sure. Do I believe in the supernatural? Sure. But do I believe Jesus' words and the biblical writers' words more? Absolutely! If what a person teaches or believes doesn't square with Scriptural revelation (or outright contridicts the Scripture--think Hinn, Copeland, Hagin or any other of these nut-jobs on tube these days), then "Just say no!"
Uh-oh, this draft is getting too long for blogger. I must continue on next post. Hmm...maybe I am becoming the next "Jeff"? :-)
cont'd from previous post...
Jesus proclaims that the Scripture is enough for us (and His Scripture was only the Ot--we now have the OT and the NT). We don't need to know of a person's supposed "encounter" with the angles or heaven and hell to affirm the Bible. Sid Roth's excitement about the supernatural notwithstanding, God has revealed Himself in the Scripture and His Son--not in a miraculous gold-filling of our teeth, as if the porcelain or silver amalgam filling from our local dentist is not good enough for us.
Having said all of that, I can see the Spirit of God using a NDE, as Chucky suggests, "to help bring awareness, repentance and restoration to someone that may not be actively following God, and/or as a witness to others." I also find his response reasonable and objective. But I don't believe these instances are anything more than a psychological/spiritual experience as the Spirit brings a mind to awareness--as He does in a myriad of ways on a daily basis that do not contradict the Scripture or make it irrelevent.
Okay, now that I've given just about everyone a reason to dislike me I think my work here is done! :-)
Of course, anyone who truly believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who has atoned for sin and has brought salvation to all who come to Him by faith, that person is my Brother and/or Sister. Yes gulp even the Kenneth Copelands of the world.
Do you think God will let me avoid KC if the unimaginable happens and we share the glory of this redeemed earth (you knew I had to get that in again!) together for eternity? :-)
...probably not.
GGM
Jeff was the first person I knew of to actually 'break Blogger', by that I mean he was the first person I blogged with to have comments rejected because they were too long.
Since then I reason that you and I have also followed.
I think in the case of the work of Habermas, NDEs are used as one of the cumulative evidences for the existence of the spirit outside of the body, especially when persons are brain dead. I suppose here these spiritual activities could be tied to events in certain supposed places.
Yes, some of these hell accounts are comic bookish.
'Do I believe that NDE's take place? Sure. But I believe these are psychological experiences, not ontological experiences. Do I believe people like Wiese? Absolutely not! These guys (and ladies) are either deluded or self-conscious heretics who want to prey on the gulible so that they make money and gain popularity--they have their reward!'
I think Habermas provides some good information and I remain open-minded on NDEs.
Whether it is mainly psychological/spiritual or a person actually visits Paradise or Hades, God is in control with a purpose.
'Do I believe in miracles? Sure. Do I believe in the supernatural? Sure. But do I believe Jesus' words and the biblical writers' words more? Absolutely! If what a person teaches or believes doesn't square with Scriptural revelation (or outright contridicts the Scripture--think Hinn, Copeland, Hagin or any other of these nut-jobs on tube these days), then "Just say no!"'
My Dad says I should be a televangelist.
'Uh-oh, this draft is getting too long for blogger. I must continue on next post. Hmm...maybe I am becoming the next "Jeff"? :-) '
Please don't bust Blogger! I have enough hassles on here already!
cont'd from previous post...
I am glad you did not quote Sid Vicious or David Lee Roth.
'Having said all of that, I can see the Spirit of God using a NDE, as Chucky suggests, "to help bring awareness, repentance and restoration to someone that may not be actively following God, and/or as a witness to others." I also find his response reasonable and objective. But I don't believe these instances are anything more than a psychological/spiritual experience as the Spirit brings a mind to awareness--as He does in a myriad of ways on a daily basis that do not contradict the Scripture or make it irrelevent.'
Possible.
Thanks my friend!:)
Re: Kenneth Copeland
My mother can't stand it when they run the promo ads for his show, she says he makes her sick. But then a lot of things make her sick...
Well I hope you can get out of the white room tonight...
Cheers, Cardinal Chucklins.
GGM:
I totally agree about not deriving theology from experiential events, either personal or second-hand.
I understand that many are tempted to avoid what the Bible says and just focus on experience.
Having said that, I think it is worthwhile to listen and consider the experiences of others, and while we cannot form doctrines, we can speculate or form theories about things that are not understood.
I would expect that some, maybe most NDEs, could be psychological or psychologically influenced - however given the documented reports of out-of-body experiences, including knowledge of things that were "seen" from outside the body while technically brain-dead, there does seem to be some possibility for souls to have experience apart from the body. I would think that the non-body state would be quite limited in function, however.
'I would expect that some, maybe most NDEs, could be psychological or psychologically influenced - however given the documented reports of out-of-body experiences, including knowledge of things that were "seen" from outside the body while technically brain-dead, there does seem to be some possibility for souls to have experience apart from the body. I would think that the non-body state would be quite limited in function, however.'
I tend to view your points as reasonable. My thoughts are similar.
Thanks, Pope Chucklins I of Ridge.
No, Jeff is the undisputed "king of comments"! And I mean that in a good way, of course. :-)
Thanks, GGM. My extreme (and usually off-topic) verbosity knows no bounds. Over the years, I have tried to curb my rabid pleonastic circumlocutory tendencies, but such prolixity as I seem to suffer from seems difficult to forbear.
You might find this interesting:
Near-Death Experiences: Evidence for an Afterlife? - Gary Habermas MP3 Audio
Dr. Gary Habermas gives a talk about data reported in peer-reviewed medical journals involving near-death experiences.
Habermas is good on the subject, I have listened to his audio presentation previously.
I recommend considering what he has to say.
'No, Jeff is the undisputed "king of comments"! And I mean that in a good way, of course. :-)'
If Jeff is Paul, GGM is Timothy.
If Jeff is Batman, GGM is Robin...
If Jeff is the Hulk, GGM is the Thing.
If Jeff is Ronald McDonald, GGM is the Burger King.
If Jeff were the beast...
I hope this clarifies.
If Jeff is Paul, GGM is Timothy.
If Jeff is Batman, GGM is Robin...
If Jeff is the Hulk, GGM is the Thing.
Thanks, Russ, but methinks ye doth flatter me too much.
Not to state you are better than GGM, just the king of comments.:)
"...curb my rabid pleonastic circumlocutory tendencies, but such prolixity as I seem to suffer from seems difficult to forbear."
Huh?
I'm honored to be "sidekick" to the comment-machine! But now that the pressure is on I'm not sure how I'll hold up.
We'll see....
Tune in next time: same Super Jeff-time same Super Jeff-channel!
Hmm...I think you need a super-hero-commenter alias name.
I'm sure our majesty kingpin can come up with something!
GGM
The best I can do at this time is 'The Jeff'.
Cheers, GGM and Jeff, true and loyal blogging friends.
new post
Excellent Work!
"[40}" I agree.
Thanks very much, K.
Russ:)
Hi,
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made for this blog. I Really like this..
I have added your blog to My Friend's Blog Roll at
http://carshipping-uk.blogspot.com . So would
You put my blog too; our visitors can get relative and useful information form your site.
I will hope you would add my blog.
Thanks
Alright, Bertina, I shall add your blog.
Cheers.
Hi,
Great post, I like this post.
I 've added your blog to My Interesting Blog List at
http://nasa-space-info.blogspot.com
So would you put my blog too, on you...
you can get healthy traffic from us and our visitors can get relative and useful information form your site.
Hope you would add my blog.
Thanks a lot.Keep blogging....
David, it is done, thanks.
Post a Comment