|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| An Eschatological Post? Part III |
Do you have any idea how fast you were going ma'am?
We are all familiar with speed as a unit of measurement. Speed tells us how far we have gone in a given amount of time. In fact we give the measurement itself in terms of that space-time relationship: 100 mph (miles per hour).
Put on your philosopher's hat for a quick moment of deep thought. If the universe were utterly static - that is, if there was no movement in the universe at all - no people walking around, no talking, indeed no light moving around, no electrons orbiting, no quarks spinning, no movement at all - the concept of time would have no meaning.
To flesh that idea out, imagine if God simply stopped the universe in mid-flight. You wouldn't notice it because even having a thought requires electrical impulses to travel through your nervous system. If all things stopped, you would be utterly ignorant of them. In fact, if every five seconds God stopped the universe for ten trillion years, then let it "run" again for five seconds, only to stop it again for another ten trillion years - and has done so from the very start - we would be utterly ignorant of it, as we perceive time and space simultaneously or not at all.
Okay, philosophy hats off. Perhaps the most well known scientific formula came to us through Einstein:E = mc2 We see in Einstein's formula how much energy we can expect to be released if we were to convert a given mass entirely into energy. Note that the governing factor in this formula is the speed of light?
The relationship we see between space and time is most often understood in terms of movement, since in order to move one must pass through both time and physical space. All the activity that has ever taken place in the universe has taken place in time and space together. We (inside of creation at least) that there are laws which govern creation - we cannot have space without having time, or time without having space - and that what we see as a formula is actually just the algebraic representation of the way the universe is designed. We see the order, and we can even measure to some degree the connection. Whatever else our philosophical and scientific musing may lead to, one thing we ought to conclude is that whatever the universe "is" - it is defined primarily as being both time and space together.
Said another more religious way - Whatever else God created, He certainly created both time and space.
But you ask, what does all that have to do with Romans 11? Didn't you say you would be discussing Romans 11? Yes, but not yet. Before I can even get to Romans 11 I have to lay out my own presuppositions or else if I err, it will be quite difficult to correct me, and if my opinion disagrees with anyone else's, at least they can see upon what I am resting my conclusions. So I feel it is good to address up front the baggage I will likely bring to my understanding of that text. I feel it is prudent for me to lay it out because in doing so I give myself opportunity to see if my bias is going to flavor my understanding of the text, and if so, whether that is a good, bad, or even unimportant thing.
If time and space are things that God created, then I must be careful not to regard as possible any limits that either aspect of creation might impose upon God. If God exists "outside" of creation, then I cannot soberly imagine that God who was at one time without any obligations has now come under certain obligations because His creation has imposed them upon Him. If God obligates himself to creation, it is certain that the obligation was not produced by creation, but rather originates in God who obligates Himself according to His own sovereign will.
You have heard some ask, "Can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it up?"
The question rises out of that tired old categorical confusion about the nature of the relationship between God and his creation. God exists aside from His creation and is by no means governed by it, but rather governs it. God cannot create a sovereign creation - He cannot create a universe that controls Him or binds Him - or said another way, God cannot create anything that is more sovereign than He is.
We say all that in order to understand my first presumption that I take into the text of Romans 11. My first presumption is that God cannot be imposed upon by creation unless God ordains that creation make that imposition upon Him. If creation can impose itself upon God outside of God's sovereignty, then God has created something greater and more sovereign than Himself - a hypothetical condition that I must wholeheartedly reject as an abominable slandering of God's great name. My first presumption therefore is that God cannot create something more glorious and sovereign than Himself.
Time (for instance) isn't some "thing" that just happens, it is a thing that God has created, and that God is presently upholding. If time and space could be thought of as some giant cosmic ball, God would be able to hold that ball in his hands (I am of course anthropomorphizing God) and see all of it in a glance. It isn't that God is trapped inside the cosmic ball and waiting along with the rest of creation to see how it is all going to end - God is outside of creation! He is outside of its beginning, He is outside of its end, and He is by no means bound by any of the moments in between.
When scripture says that God sees the end from the beginning it isn't suggesting that God is looking forward in time from some static perspective. That is how a creature would see the end from the beginning - but God is no creature. I believe that what scripture is saying is that God sees in the same single glance both the beginning and the end. I cannot stress it more - God is not a fortune teller stuck in "the present" such as the remainder of creation, and peering into the future. That's open theism - that's garbage (IMO). I think scripture shows us that God is in every moment past, present, and future, and not in the way that we find ourselves in a moment (bounded by that laws of creation: time), rather I believe that God's presence in time and space is absolutely transcendent: His presence is not defined by those physical laws that govern the universe. God is everywhere all at once, in all times, and in all places, not because he is "really big" but because creation is physical, and God is spiritual, and whatever else it means to "inhabit eternity" it surely means that God is transcendent in creation. That is, God never learns anything through creation - God cannot be taught because he knows all already. He sees all of history in the same glance, and because he does the future (as we see it) is not some thing that God has to "look forward" to see. God is already there.
Make no mistake dear reader, if even the smallest quark could spin contrary to, or even outside the will of God - then God is by no means sovereign, and having created a universe that is not subject to Himself, he has shown Himself to be less than omnipotent and omniscient - that is, he has shown himself to be not God.
My presumption therefore is that God -is- sovereign, and that because He is sovereign He is not merely some inerrant fortune teller; such as some imagine when they think of God's omniscience; but rather that when scripture uses words like "foreknew" it by no means suggests that creation is dictating to God what the future is going to be. It is an error to imagine that God's foreknowledge is nothing more than the ability to see what a "runaway" creation is going to do later.
I believe therefore that when scripture speaks of election, it isn't that God took a hazy look into the future, and saw that I was going to choose Him, and therefore followed my lead and elected me because of some choice I made - that is, my understanding of God's sovereignty is definitely going to flavor my understanding of a text such as we find in Romans 11:2,"...God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew..."
More later, but for now, I give this up front - I believe that election is not God looking forward in time and seeing who would chose to be in Christ, such that God becomes obligated by his creation to elect man according to man's sovereign choice. My God is truly sovereign - He elected me, and *that* is why I chose him. Not the other way around. That understanding of scripture is certainly going to flavor how I understanding the meaning of "foreknew" in this text - which in turn is going to flavor how I understand the olive trees of Romans 11.Labels: eschatology |
posted by Daniel @
9:40 AM
8 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
|
| An Eschatological Post? Part II |
The apostasy of Israel had prompted Elijah to pray for, and receive, a drought. But the drought was about to end because Elijah had called all of Israel up to mount Carmel for the battle royal of all time - God vs. Baal!
Now, I don't say all of Israel frivolously - that is what the text says in 1 Kings 18:19:"19Now therefore send and gather all Israel to me at Mount Carmel, and the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table." But we read something about "all Israel later in the same book - in the fifteenth verse of chapter twenty to be precise, we read: "15 Then he mustered the young leaders of the provinces, and there were two hundred and thirty-two; and after them he mustered all the people, all the children of Israel—seven thousand." You will recall the scene: Elijah, 7000 Israelites, and almost a thousand (950) prophets of Baal and Asherah, all gathered together on Mt. Carmel - and of course we all know what happens there. The prophets of those pretend Gods pray all day long, mutilating themselves and shouting to their imaginary Gods, but nothing happens. Then Elijah prepares a water logged sacrifice, and in the briefest of prayers Elijah calls upon God to kindle the sacrifice and demonstrate whom the Israelites ought to be following - that is to demonstrate who is God, then SHZAM! Fire from the sky - a punctuating demonstration that the Lord - He, and He alone is God.
Now we bring the verse from chapter 20 into the picture to remind us that "all of Israel" at the time was a mere 7000 men.
Huh?
Doesn't that seem a little small - I mean, later Elijah as Elijah flees into the mountains to avoid Jezebel's wrath the Lord asks him in that famous still small voice, "What are you doing out here?" - and what is the prophet's reply, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life."
Let's understand this together: at the time there were actually hundred's of thousands of apostate Israelites living in Israel. It wasn't like the drought had killed off everyone. "All" of Israel in this context did not mean everyone who was alive from the ten tribes - but what becomes clear in chapter 19 is that these seven thousand who are still worthy to bear the name of Israel, who are in fact by themselves considered "all of Israel" - or if I may put it into a modern cliche - these 7000 represent all that is left of what was once Israel - the physical descendants number in the hundreds of thousands, but the spiritual descendants are only a fraction of what they :18Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him." 1 Kings 19:18 [ESV]
God refers to this fraction as "all of Israel" - and goes so far as to say that these are a remnant not because of their own virtue, but because He Himself has reserved for His own purpose these particular 7000 Israelites. These are (without doubt) the same seven thousand who had not bowed down to Baal, and who watched God light up a water-logged cow like a roman candle. There were hundreds of thousands of Israelites at the time, but only a remnant who were faithful, only a remnant who had not apostatized - only seven thousand who could rightly be called "Israel".
Clearly this will be important as we make our way to Romans 11 in the next post.Labels: eschatology |
|
posted by Daniel @
4:38 PM
6 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| An Eschatological Post? Part -I- |
Once upon a time King Solomon noticed an industrious young man, a mighty man of valor even though it was a time of peace. Solomon himself appointed this man as -the- officer over all the labor force of Ephraim, a military appointment that brought this man into the public eye in a big way. The man was from the tribe of Ephraim.
We might never have heard of this fellow had Solomon lived a righteous life to the end of his days. But we read the following in 1 Kings 11:9-13:
9So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded. 11Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. 12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 However I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.” [ESV]
The servant of Solomon in question was a man of the tribe of Ephraim - an industrious mighty man of valor. He was given a military appointment over a civilian body, that is he was made the officer over all the labor force of the house of Joseph. It may not sound like much, but it was a very public position. So that when Ahijah the prophet took this young fellow aside and told him that because Solomon had forsaken God in allowing the worship of Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the people of Ammon, and because Solomon was not walking in God's ways to do what was right in God's eyes and to keep God's statutes and judgments as did Solomon's father David - for this reason God had determined to tear the kingdom away from Solomon and into 12 pieces, two of which were going to be given to this young man to rule. God also made a promise to this young fellow that if he heeded all that God command him - that is, if he walked in God's ways, and did what was right in God's sight by keeping God's statutes and commandments with the same heart as David had, then God would be with him and build for him an enduring house, just as God had built for David - for even though the kingdom was being taken away from David's heir, yet a lamp was left for David's lineage. The promise was that God would give Israel to this young man, and it must have become public knowledge because when Solomon heard about it, rather than repent he sought to kill the young man. The young man fled to Egypt and stayed there until Solomon died.
Now when Solomon's son, Rehoboam became king, the young fellow returned from Egypt and publicly met with Rehoboam to plea with him over the plight of the laborers whom this former servant and mighty man of valor had previously been the officer over. But Rehoboam planned not only to continue down the path of apostasy that Solomon had paved in his latter years, but to do so with gusto - and instead of being kind to the laborers, he was fiercely harsh - and in the aftermath of this harshness Israel not only rejected Rehoboam as king, but went so far as to pursue the former servant of Solomon and make him their new king.
The young man's name of course was Jeroboam, and the very first thing we read about his rule was that he did not trust God's promise to him, but was concerned that the house of David might get back the ten tribes, and so to avoid that he took someone's advice and made two golden calves and instituted a whole system of religion that was meant to supplant/replace the need to go up to Jerusalem.
As Jeroboam was engaged in idol worship at Bethel, offering sacrifices on altars he had made for this purpose - a man of God came and told him that upon these altars he had made, one of David's descendants would sacrifice the priests that Jeroboam had appointed to these high places, the priests who burned incense on those altars that Jeroboam had commissioned. In a rage, Jeroboam pointed at the prophet and demanded his arrest, but the hand he pointed with withered. Then Jeroboam became a little more kindly, and instead asked the man to pray for him so that he might be restored physically speaking.
Upon Jeroboam's death, the northern kingdom passed into the hands of Nadab his wicked son, but only for two years. Baasha, the son of Ahijah from the tribe of Issachar slew Nadab and the kingdom passed out of the hands of Jeroboam's family and into the hands of Baasha's family (a move from Ephraim to Issachar). But Baasha was just as wicked as Nadab had been if not moreso, and the kingdom passed into the hands of his son Elah when He died, but Elah only reigned for two years before he was killed by the commander of half of his chariots - a man name Zimri whose lineage we know nothing about. Zimri didn't just kill Elah, he slew the whole "royal" family. Zimri's reign, if you can call it that - lasted only seven days.
When the northern kingdom learned what Zimri had done, they rejected him as king, and named the commander of the Army king instead - Omri. Omri went up to battle Zimri, but Zimri committed suicide by burning his house down with himself inside it. After that Israel couldn't decide whether they were going to follow Omri or some other fellow named Tibni, but eventually Omri prevailed.
Omri was a wicked fellow too, even more wicked than all those who had preceded him, but he only reigned for a dozen years before he too died, and his son Ahab took the throne. Like Zimri before him, we do not know for sure what tribe Omri came from.
It was about 107 years from the first day of Jeroboam's reign to the first day of Ahab's reign, but in that short time the northern kingdom passed through four families and at least two tribes, and possibly more, and as the kingdom changed hands it grew more and more apostate.
We mention all this to set the stage for a verse we want to examine: 1 Kings 18:1-18"17When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, 'Is it you, you troubler of Israel?' 18And he answered, 'I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the LORD and followed the Baals.' " [ESV]
Ahab's claim to the throne did not come through God's promise, but rather through his father having wrested the kingdom from another, whom had in turn wrested it from another. Ahab no doubt understood that he was ruling a kingdom that had a very short history that was punctuated by bloody regime changes. Before Ahab ever courted Jezebel, he courted her father, whom history tells us was an assassin named Eithobalus, who upon assassinating King Pheles, usurped the throne for himself. Eithobalus, or "Ithobaal the first" founded his own dynasty, and amassed great power and wealth. Ahab no doubt married Jezebel, in part at least, to gain the political security of having this wealthy and powerful usurper as his in-law.
Picture therefore the relationship that Ahab must have with Jezebel. His marriage to her added legitimacy and security to his claim on the throne - politically speaking - for if someone were to assassinate Ahab, well, they would have to take on the King of Tyre and Sidon to do so, and at that time, that wouldn't have been a very wise thing to do. Perhaps that is Ahab allowed Jezebel so much freedom? Who can say. One thing is certain however, her influence was absolutely wicked, and by the time we find this conversation taking place between Ahab and Elijah, the Northern Kingdom was so firmly in the grip of apostasy, that Jezebel was not only able to put to death the prophets of God without any political objection - but was also able to establish idolatry on a level previously unheard of.
All this however is just, as I said, to set the stage for another passage we want to look at.Labels: eschatology |
|
posted by Daniel @
12:01 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Hermeneutics and Eschatology |
 Long ago in my faith I spent some effort focusing my study of God's word on the teachings about the last days. We use the word eschatology to describe this, and I suppose that is only natural as it comes from two Greek words: eschatos and logos, which mean "last" and "word" respectively. We use the word eschatology therefore to identify "end time" specific theology.
I say, I had in the past given some considerable study to this, but was unable from my studies to conclude a cohesive model. I like to describe the outcome of that time of study not as fruitless, but rather as producing a certainty in me of what eschatological teachings I am certain cannot be correct. That is, while I did not have enough light to build a complete model, I believe I had enough light to examine errors in some of the popular systems around.
To be sure, I regard the study of eschatology as perhaps the very least valuable of all theological studies, and in saying that I suppose I put myself before the ire of those who have made eschatology their great passion, for implied in my confession is, I suppose, a thinly veiled jab at those who are preoccupied with this particular study and regard as adversarial anyone who does not share their priorities.
That is not to suggest however, that I believe a Christian is justified in neglecting eschatological teachings, for one errs in neglecting such matter just as surely as one can err in over emphasizing it. I mention this only to avoid the charge by denying the supremacy of eschatological teachings, I am necessarily demanding their neglect, or dismissing their value altogether. Don't laugh - when a person disagrees with you, they typically do so and presume that you are not only disagreeing with them, but are doing so by embracing the position that is farthest away from what they believe.
I suppose I am hindered in my study of the end times by the approach I take to when I interpret the meaning of scripture. My hermeneutic is simple enough, I read the bible, and believe it to be true, and trust that it is never going to be my intellect that reveals truth to me, (though my intellect will certainly play a role in articulating that truth), but it will be God's Spirit that reveals truth to me. I don't raise that up as some pious method, but rather as the only way I have ever studied scripture, and having had some light from the Lord in the past, I am inclined to continue to use what has worked for me so well thus far.
That is not to say that when I come to a text I disregard what is clearly stated in the text in favor of some mystical impression I presume will come to me. If that were the case I wouldn't need a bible, I could just mediate until "truth" impressed itself mystically into my understanding. Such gnostic nonsense is not what I mean - rather I believe that as we let the word of God dwell in us, as we meditate on it's meaning, that the Spirit given to us as the Guarantee of of sonship - this same Spirit illumines our understanding. The words of scripture are like a bowl that holds in it truth - when the Spirit enlightens us we can drink from that bowl, but in the same way that what we drink out of a bowl is first contained in the bowl, so too with the word of God, the truth is held in a text like living water in a bowl - and just the water conforms to the shape of the bowl, so too the truth conforms to the text. Which is only to say that my hermeneutic does not involve taking more from God's word than is there - a truth when rightly articulated draws water from the well of the word without polluting it; but while this may well be articulated by our intellect, it is not our intellect that opens up Spiritual truths to us. Our intellect is part of our flesh and blood, and flesh and blood do not reveal truth to us.
So I say, my understanding of eschatology is limited or hindered by my hermeneutic, but I mean it in this sense - I refuse to knowingly speculate beyond what a text says. That is, I imagine that scripture is not presented to us as a riddle to be figured out, but as a truth to be understood. I reject the premise that God has given us puzzle that is not only missing some pieces, but has a rather out of focus image upon it such that we must not only lend our speculation to the puzzle to fill in the missing pieces, but must also squint in just this 'right' way to see what the other imagines the blurred image to be.
I am reminded of seventies paranoia about backward masked Satanic messages in songs - you remember that don't you? Here we see the Christian alarmist playing some record backwards and you listen and no matter how many times the recording is played, you hear no messages, and in fact hear only the sound of human voices that sound all wrong and nonsensical. Then the expert tells you what to hear, and you listen again, this time trying to hear that - and what do you know? You can now make it out. Sure it doesn't really sound like that or you would have heard it the first time, but you cannot deny that if you project clarity into these verses where there is really no clarity - you can now "hear" what previously wasn't there - all you have to do is add to it a little projected "clarity."
So when I speak of that hindrance produced by my hermeneutic, I mean only that when I come to a text wherein the meaning is unclear, I make it my practice to leave the clarifying work to God, even when there are a hundred "experts" willing to clarify the text on my behalf. I respect that God has given the church men with insight and understanding, and I am glad to take instruction on such matters, yet instruction stops being instruction and begins to be speculation when instead of shining light upon a verse, instead one is told to "squint thus" in order to "see it". There are two fools: the first refuses to take any instruction, and the second is willing to take instruction even when that instruction goes beyond the text.
What that all means is that when I say something like "I don't make eschatology my passion" I am not suggesting that I neglect eschatology, or that I am better than someone because I haven't figured it out, or any such nonsense. All I mean is that my study has yet to yield a complete and cohesive model.
I mention this only because I plan to post on a passage that is somewhat eschatological in nature, and I want to grease the way a bit beforehand...Labels: eschatology, hermeneutic |
|
posted by Daniel @
10:45 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| When Coming Home... |
My wife and children were out this Father's Day weekend camping with her parents. (I would have been with them, but I had previously agreed to preach at a local church, and so we agreed it best for her to spend time with her Father).
As I left the office Friday evening, I realized I was in no hurry to get home whatsoever, in fact, I was sort of not looking forward to coming home to an empty house. Frankly, I hadn't really given it much thought before, but I suddenly understood that the key joy in my bike ride home was knowing that my family was there and being eager to see them.
I was thinking today that as sojourners here, we are on our way home even now, to our heavenly home, and should we allow that truth to occupy us, it can make the ride quite sweet.
We serve a good God, who is rich towards us every day. How much shall I enjoy that wedding feast, when I am finally come home!Labels: eschatology |
|
posted by Daniel @
1:17 PM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Λόγος Ἐσχατου |
 By now most of you know that logos is the Greek word for word, message, or statement, and that eschatos is the Greek word for "last" - and you have probably figured out that the word "eschatology" probably comes from these two Greek words and that is why it has come to refer to the Christian study of the end times.
I once sat down and tried to get all my eschatological ducks in a row, but not in the standard way (I suppose) that most who have an eschatological opinion do - that is, I didn't open up a book to find out how someone else thinks it is all going to fall out in some detailed "this means that" sort of way. I say, I tried, to understand it in the same way I tried to understand the rest of scripture. I read it, and asked God to teach me in it. This method has helped me greatly in most other aspects of theology, but it has failed to give me a detailed, conclusive, eschatological framework.
It isn't that I failed to comprehend many things with regards to eschatology, but rather that I failed to come up with some air-tight "This is how it works, I am sure of it" sort of end times plan, and certainly nothing that would warrant a garish illustration complete with little cherubs, a cross, some clouds, a throne, and a small multitude of multi coloured divisions and arrows, detailing to the tenth of a second when exactly everything that was going to happen would happen, and to whom. Nor does my understanding remain so vague that I toss my hands in the air, and limit my opinion to the nigh-vacuous (by virtue of its self evidency) obligatory "Christ will return, and everything will work itself out in the end" sort of "no-brainer" conclusion.
I confess, my first concern for the church is not that it has a well mapped out eschatological framework to generate tertiary theological speculations from, but rather that God's Spirit would be manifest in believers through the overcoming of rebellion (sin) in their lives - so that the church might be a light set on a hill in this world, and not one that is under a basket of sin.
So I always feel somewhat at a loss when a conversation turns to eschatology. I know what things I find highly unlikely, or questionable, but that is hardly welcome in most conversations of this nature. And frankly, I have no passion to debate things that are more often than not, conclusions derived from a host of speculations or assumptions built upon other speculations or assumptions.
That sort of framework is what we call building a precept upon a precept - a line upon a line - and scripture used that very kind of language to describe why men were failing to understand God's word correctly - because God's word to them was line upon line, precept upon precept - they were using God's word like a child uses Lego - taking a pile of red blocks and using them to build the word "Green" - then arguing from the "green" instead of the red. I cringe whenever I hear someone using the "line upon line, precept upon precept" as though it were an admirable thing to do.
So when it comes to eschatology, I try to keep it simple and biblical. Whatever I understand, I understand, and whatever confuses me, I give to the Lord. I don't make it a matter of exclusion or inclusion, and while I find it interesting to hear what some people think - I try to stay out of the conversations when I can. I don't suggest that we ignore it, for it is in the bible for a reason, and we would be fools indeed to ignore anything that God has given to the church. Yet as fascinating as I might find it, I feel there are more important things for me to focus on as a believer - at least for the moment.Labels: eschatology, lego |
|
posted by Daniel @
1:03 PM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
