Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Brief Thoughts on Predestination

I have not attended a seminary or Bible college. I'm not a theologian, professional or amateur, I'm just putting my thought “out there” on the web.

Teachings about predestination usually come from either a Calvinist or Arminian point of view. I once said that I'm a practicing non-Calvinist (and speculated that some day all that practice might help me get it right). I'm also a practicing non-Arminian.

The predestination issue arises out of the larger concept of God's sovereignty, the teaching that God is in control in His creation, and that His will will be accomplished. I believe that God's sovereignty is much more complex than we can possibly fully understand (would God be God if we could understand Him?!). Part of our problem is that we are in time, while God is not. Time is one of God's creatures and not something to which God is subject. The best way I can express the significance of that is to say that to God, Abraham's lifetime is as real as are mine and that of my unborn grandchildren. God's knowledge is complete, and what is "future" to us is just real to God as what we call “past”. God does not need to micro-manage or micro-manipulate events and people as they happen.

God created the universe, everything that would happen from the Day of Creation through the Day of Judgment. Everything that would happen, including the myriad influences and decisions that would, ultimately, lead to my accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior … or another person's rejection of Jesus. In that sense, God predestined everything by creating the entire timer-space continuum, not by changing and tweaking on the fly everything that happens. Thus, my and every other person's choices are true choices, not something that God pre-programed into me or something into which God manipulated me. God chose to create creatures, humans, who could choose to love and serve Him rather than robots programmed to "love" and "serve". I (and every other person) am truly and fully responsible for my choices and actions.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

"Speaking the Truth in Love"

A "brilliant" realization struck me yesterday morning while driving to work, regarding Ephesians 4:15:

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ

My responsibilities in this are "simple". I am responsible to speak the truth. I am responsible to be motivated by love. And I am responsible to speak lovingly. I am not responsible for the other person's response.

Compromising the truth, obscuring the truth or speaking just part of the truth, however motivated, is a failure to speak the truth. Failing to speak needed full truth out of concern for the other person's "feelings" is also a failure of love. And clubbing some one with the truth is an obvious failure of love.

These are things I can control, and being fully truthful and loving are tough enough. I cannot control what the other person does. They may take the truth to heart and start the process of walking in it. They may get angry, defensive and walk away from our friendship. My responsibilities are to speak the truth, clearly, fully, and lovingly. I must trust the Holy Spirit to persuade the other person of that truth and their need for it. I must resist the temptation to play Holy Spirit, and trust Him to do His "job". The other person is responsible for their response. I must resist the temptations to assume responsibility for things I cannot control and for which I am not responsible.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Adventures In Applesauce

A snack I've been having lately is a simple mix of a half cup of plain non-fat yogurt, a quarter cup of granola (chosen carefully to avoid super high calorie types) and a quarter cup of crushed pineapple (packed in its own juice). It's pretty good nutritionally, pretty filling, and under 200 calories. I decided that it would be good to introduce some variety, but what to use?. Applesauce seemed a natural choice in place of the crushed pineapple, but to me, store-bought jarred applesauce is barely mediocre. On the other hand, I have fond memories of my Mom's homemade applesauce.

Her “recipe” was simple, cut up apples, a little water, a little brown sugar and a pinch of salt (to enhance the flavor). The critical ingredient is the apple. I know, “Du-uhh!” But seriously, apples that are great eaten fresh – e.g. Jazz, Honeycrisp or Jonagold – are not necessarily very good for cooking. I tried using Honeycrisp, and while the resulting applesauce was better than the stuff from a jar, it was just OK. So I decided to try several types that are good for cooking. So far, I've tried Pink Lady and Pippin, and the results have been very good. I'm going to try Granny Smith also (when on sale). My Mom always used Gravenstein, but I haven't seen that variety at our local store. At any rate, my family is enjoying the homemade applesauce and I have some variety in my snack.

I know, no profound lessons about not accepting mediocrity in our walk with Christ or how God uses different types of people for different purpose. How weird of me! But God wants us to enjoy his creation, and really great applesauce is very enjoyable!

Sunday, November 6, 2011

My Response to a Bit of Popular Facebook “Wisdom”

This comment regarding the Bible seems to be popular on Facebook at the moment:

I believe in god. I don't go to church, reasoning be i don't want some priest trying to tell me what "gods" words are or how things went down back in the day. The bible to me is a fake, maybe not all of it. A bible is like a scary story passed down generation to generation, as the story gets passed down the words are twisted and the story changes. I want to go to heaven, but im gonna live my life to the fullest and not regret a thing.

I don't know who wrote it or how much it has bounced around the Internet, being modified by various people as it is passed along. Whichever is the case, the author(s) displays such a lack of understanding of the Bible that I wonder whether (s)he has even read it – more than just verses from here and there, the entire Bible. Why do I say that? Well, the reason is in the Bible itself.

Starting with the New Testament, it has three literary types – historical accounts, personal letters, and a book of prophetic vision. The book of prophecy and the personal letters were written by the ones speaking (or in a few cases, someone acting as a secretary). In most, the author is Identified: "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus ..."; "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ ..."; "From Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ"; Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ ..."; "From John, to the seven churches". There was no time when these books were passed orally, being embellished with every generation.

The historical accounts are the four Gospels and the book of Acts. Two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, Matthew and John. Mark may have been an eyewitness to some of what he wrote, but Mark also worked, at different times, with Paul, a probable eyewitness to some events recounted, and Peter, who was an eyewitness to Jesus' life and ministry. Luke, the author of the eponymous Gospel and the book of Acts was not an eyewitness. However, Luke informs his readers that he consulted multiple eyewitnesses for his Gospel account. No doubt, Luke also did this for slightly more than half of the book of Acts. Then, at Acts 16:11, Luke changes from “they” to “we”. Almost half of the book of Acts is his eyewitness account. Again, there was no time when these books were passed orally and embellished with successive re-tellings.

So, what about the Old Testament, which is about 80% of the Bible? Again, there are three literary types in the Old Testament, historical accounts, poetry & wisdom, and prophecy. The books of prophecy, like the New Testament personal letters and book of prophecy, were written by the ones speaking, and are named for their authors (eponymous). There was no period of oral transmission for these books – no retelling, no embellishment.

The books of poetry & wisdom and most of the historical accounts in the Old Testament were written by compilers, who used records and writings contemporaneous to the people and events that were the subjects of books of poetry & wisdom and historical accounts: no oral transmission, no embellishment.

The historical account books I excepted from the previous paragraph are the first five books of the Bible, those written by Moses. Of those, Moses was an eyewitness to the events of four – Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (except for the accounts of his infancy and of his death, which would would still be from contemporaneous eyewitnesses). For these books, there was no period of oral transmission – no retelling, no embellishment.

That leaves just one book – one book out of the 66 books of the Bible – not yet considered. Genesis was written by Moses, but it tells of events hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before Moses' lifetime. Obviously Moses was not an eyewitness. What was (were) Moses' source(s)? He didn't say. His source(s) may have been oral traditions; his sources may have been written accounts; or a mix of both. My guess, based on the amount of detail in some accounts and the summary quality of other accounts, is that Moses drew from both oral traditions and written accounts.

IF my guess is correct, just 11 chapters of the book of Genesis derive from oral tradition. If all 50 chapters of Genesis have oral tradition as their source, that is but a tiny fraction of the whole Bible. Whether part or all of Genesis derive from oral tradition, that still is short of being a, “scary story passed down generation to generation, as the story gets passed down the words are twisted and the story changes.” Families in non-literate and semi-literate societies did not treat their oral family histories the way Boy Scouts tell scary stories at camp-outs. Family histories were the heritage, the identity of family members. If, hypothetically, exaggerating significance and heroism was a temptation, reading the book of Genesis will dispel the idea that Genesis chapters 12-50 have been thus embellished. Genesis recounts the good stuff and the moral warts of the patriarchal ancestors of Israel – scaredy-cats, deceivers, braggarts, spousal and sibling rivalries, murders, would-be fratricides. If orally transmitted, Genesis chapters 12-50 evidence brutal honesty, not heroic embellishment, and derivation from contemporaneous written accounts is possible.

Thankfully, in US society one is free to believe or not believe the Bible as one chooses. And no one is under compulsion to give a reason for their choice. Contrary to popular stereotype, the vast majority of Christians would not want it otherwise (“compelled belief” is oxymoronic, and compulsion in religious matters would be horrible). That said, if one chooses to explain belief or disbelief based on claims of fact, those claimed facts should actually be facts. And that is the problem here. The fact-claim that, “A bible is like a scary story passed down generation to generation, as the story gets passed down the words are twisted and the story changes,” makes for a nice just-so story, but it lacks basis in fact.

For some one who might wants to go a bit deeper beyond this blog post, I highly recommend Josh McDowell's “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. It goes a step (and more) into the manuscripts of the Bible and text transmission.