Thanks, Joshua, for the advice. But to simply ask God for the ancient paths, to which he gives Jesus as the answer, is rather simplistic. Thomas Jefferson might have agreed with your answer and quoted Matthew 11:28-30 as well. He was a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ but had little use for the rest of the Bible. He called himself a Christian deist. I wonder if he qualified for having found the ancient paths?
Then there are Reformed Christians, a good many (maybe, the majority) who have been raised in the Reformed faith all their lives. They assume that the ancient paths is what they have been taught all their lives and would never think to question those cherished and ancient teachings. There are also the Baptists who generally tend to be Arminian when it comes to salvation, but are called apostates or heretics by the early Reformers. There are also Pentecostals who emphasize the personal experience of salvation along with the experience of miraculous gifts. And there are hundreds of other denominations, each having their own emphasis as to the Christian life. Each group seems to have their own way and perspective on interpreting the Bible and understanding the ancient paths.
So to say, when the burden of trying to figure things out on our own becomes too great, simply look to Jesus and we will be given rest for our souls, this sound pretty simplistic. But I guess Thomas Jefferson would say the same, and he was a person deserving of great respect. So who am I to argue? Thanks Joshua.
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Thanks John for an interesting article that addresses the issue of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.
Is the Bible as authoritative as Kruger or you make it out to be? The only people who recognize the authority of the Bible are Christians, and by their commitment it is doubtful if many of them really recognize its authority either. You must recognize that there are a multitude of religions and sects that have their own sources of authority, just like Christians. For instance Muslims believe the Koran was given to Mohamad by God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore the Koran is the absolute authoritative word of God. Like Christians, Muslims believed that their Scriptures are absolutely inspired of God and are without error. Mormons, likewise, believe the book of Mormon (initially the twelve golden plates) was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, and therefore is also the inspired word of God and capable of giving correct interpretation to the Bible. All religions have their so-called inspired and authoritative Scriptures that represent ultimate authority.
And yet we, as Christians, discount the authority and validity of their Bibles, just as the adherents of other religions discount the authority of our Bible. So which Scriptures are really authoritative or are any? When reading a history book of recorded events, historians may record the actual existence of Jesus. But history books do not record his miraculous birth and ascent from heaven to earth, nor do they record his miraculous resurrection from the dead and ascent back into heaven as historical fact. Nor do historians record any of the miracles of other religions as historical fact. Such miracles, whether found in the Bible, Koran, the book of Mormon or any other Scriptures are considered “faith knowledge” and not historical fact. They are subjective truth rather than objective truth or empirical truth. It is only Christians who recognize the Bible as carrying any authority. What are the grounds by which we discount other religions and their authoritative Scriptures? It’s the same grounds by which they discount the Bible. So what makes Kruger or any Christian think that only the Bible is authoritative?
The person who is not a Christian looks at the account of Jesus in the Bible as an embellished account of history, much in the same way that Santa Claus is an embellished account of Saint Nicolas. The same could be said of the key characters found in the Scriptures of other religions, an embellishment of a historical character (such as Mohamad) or historical facts. So when so few people, worldwide, recognize the Bible’s authority, over the authority of their own religions (or no religion) why would anyone acknowledge Kruger’s comment in regard to the Bible’s authority?
Beyond all this, recognize that there are thousands of Christian denominations today. All may claim the authority of the Bible but all interpret it differently, even on key issues. When the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth, it makes me wonder what has happened to the Spirit’s leading. When churches and individuals can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to say, who is to say who has the final and authoritative word on any issue?
Thanks John for the reply. I did look at Kruger’s talks from the Gospel Coalition, but not in their entirety. I haven’t got the time to read everything a blogger or author suggests needs to be read. But I did notice a basic flaw in Kruger’s arguments. He’s assuming that whoever he is addressing in his Biblical arguments also believes that the Bible is true. But if he’s arguing with anyone outside of the Christian persuasion, then his argument carries no weight because this other person doesn’t believe the Bible to begin with, so why would he give any credence to a book most people put in the same category as the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Scriptures. They all make the same claim to be God’s inspired word and all endorse teachings that cannot be objectively verified. Whether it’s the Bible, the Koran, or the book of Mormon, the teachings of each are acknowledged by faith, apart from verifiable evidence or objectivity.
To most people it is not logical to claim that Jesus is very God come down from heaven to earth and was born in human form as a human baby, who grew up sinless to the age of 33, was crucified, died and buried but rose from the dead in three days and now has ascended to heaven from which he will come to earth once again to set up his finalized kingdom. That’s not logical teaching but is a teaching that can only be acknowledged by faith. The Bible’s teachings are no more logical than that of other religions. So Kruger’s teaching at the Coalition may have made sense to you because you recognize the Bible’s authority, but to anyone else his argument carries no weight. Just because the Bible claims to be true, doesn’t make it so. All religions make the same claim. So Kruger’s arguments may have made sense to you and other Christians at the Coalition, but not to others. His argument (or apologetic) is meaningless to most people.
Kruger’s argument, in regard to God swearing by his name as opposed to the Muslim God swearing by created things like mountains or stars, makes no logical sense either. If God is truly God, it doesn’t matter what he swears by. What he swears by doesn’t invalidate whether he is God or not. If the God of the Bible (the Christian God) swears by his name, or a star, or a mountain, it doesn’t change the fact that God is God. Nor does it change the reality that the Muslim God is truly God for the Muslim. Is Kruger trying to say our God is a better God because he swears by bigger and better things? His argument falls short of proving anything. And, of course, Islamic theologians will propose their own arguments to demonstrate why their God (Allah) is the one true God.
Then you suggest, John, that the Bible is the voice of the Living God. Muslims and Hindu’s make the same claim. They would never entertain the ridiculous suggestion that the God whom they worship is dead, and would just as persuasively suggest that the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the very voice of the living God.
Posted in: Ask for the Ancient Paths
Thanks, Joshua, for the advice. But to simply ask God for the ancient paths, to which he gives Jesus as the answer, is rather simplistic. Thomas Jefferson might have agreed with your answer and quoted Matthew 11:28-30 as well. He was a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ but had little use for the rest of the Bible. He called himself a Christian deist. I wonder if he qualified for having found the ancient paths?
Then there are Reformed Christians, a good many (maybe, the majority) who have been raised in the Reformed faith all their lives. They assume that the ancient paths is what they have been taught all their lives and would never think to question those cherished and ancient teachings. There are also the Baptists who generally tend to be Arminian when it comes to salvation, but are called apostates or heretics by the early Reformers. There are also Pentecostals who emphasize the personal experience of salvation along with the experience of miraculous gifts. And there are hundreds of other denominations, each having their own emphasis as to the Christian life. Each group seems to have their own way and perspective on interpreting the Bible and understanding the ancient paths.
So to say, when the burden of trying to figure things out on our own becomes too great, simply look to Jesus and we will be given rest for our souls, this sound pretty simplistic. But I guess Thomas Jefferson would say the same, and he was a person deserving of great respect. So who am I to argue? Thanks Joshua.
Posted in: Will the "Followers of Jesus" Please Stand Up?
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Posted in: Pastor as Friend?
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
Posted in: Celebrating Easter: Chocolate Bunny Required?
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Posted in: Series: How to Stay in Conversation With the “Other Side”
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Posted in: The Issue Behind [Every?] Issue: The Authority of the Bible and Its Author
Thanks John for an interesting article that addresses the issue of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.
Is the Bible as authoritative as Kruger or you make it out to be? The only people who recognize the authority of the Bible are Christians, and by their commitment it is doubtful if many of them really recognize its authority either. You must recognize that there are a multitude of religions and sects that have their own sources of authority, just like Christians. For instance Muslims believe the Koran was given to Mohamad by God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore the Koran is the absolute authoritative word of God. Like Christians, Muslims believed that their Scriptures are absolutely inspired of God and are without error. Mormons, likewise, believe the book of Mormon (initially the twelve golden plates) was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, and therefore is also the inspired word of God and capable of giving correct interpretation to the Bible. All religions have their so-called inspired and authoritative Scriptures that represent ultimate authority.
And yet we, as Christians, discount the authority and validity of their Bibles, just as the adherents of other religions discount the authority of our Bible. So which Scriptures are really authoritative or are any? When reading a history book of recorded events, historians may record the actual existence of Jesus. But history books do not record his miraculous birth and ascent from heaven to earth, nor do they record his miraculous resurrection from the dead and ascent back into heaven as historical fact. Nor do historians record any of the miracles of other religions as historical fact. Such miracles, whether found in the Bible, Koran, the book of Mormon or any other Scriptures are considered “faith knowledge” and not historical fact. They are subjective truth rather than objective truth or empirical truth. It is only Christians who recognize the Bible as carrying any authority. What are the grounds by which we discount other religions and their authoritative Scriptures? It’s the same grounds by which they discount the Bible. So what makes Kruger or any Christian think that only the Bible is authoritative?
The person who is not a Christian looks at the account of Jesus in the Bible as an embellished account of history, much in the same way that Santa Claus is an embellished account of Saint Nicolas. The same could be said of the key characters found in the Scriptures of other religions, an embellishment of a historical character (such as Mohamad) or historical facts. So when so few people, worldwide, recognize the Bible’s authority, over the authority of their own religions (or no religion) why would anyone acknowledge Kruger’s comment in regard to the Bible’s authority?
Beyond all this, recognize that there are thousands of Christian denominations today. All may claim the authority of the Bible but all interpret it differently, even on key issues. When the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth, it makes me wonder what has happened to the Spirit’s leading. When churches and individuals can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to say, who is to say who has the final and authoritative word on any issue?
Thanks John for making us think.
Posted in: The Issue Behind [Every?] Issue: The Authority of the Bible and Its Author
Thanks John for the reply. I did look at Kruger’s talks from the Gospel Coalition, but not in their entirety. I haven’t got the time to read everything a blogger or author suggests needs to be read. But I did notice a basic flaw in Kruger’s arguments. He’s assuming that whoever he is addressing in his Biblical arguments also believes that the Bible is true. But if he’s arguing with anyone outside of the Christian persuasion, then his argument carries no weight because this other person doesn’t believe the Bible to begin with, so why would he give any credence to a book most people put in the same category as the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Scriptures. They all make the same claim to be God’s inspired word and all endorse teachings that cannot be objectively verified. Whether it’s the Bible, the Koran, or the book of Mormon, the teachings of each are acknowledged by faith, apart from verifiable evidence or objectivity.
To most people it is not logical to claim that Jesus is very God come down from heaven to earth and was born in human form as a human baby, who grew up sinless to the age of 33, was crucified, died and buried but rose from the dead in three days and now has ascended to heaven from which he will come to earth once again to set up his finalized kingdom. That’s not logical teaching but is a teaching that can only be acknowledged by faith. The Bible’s teachings are no more logical than that of other religions. So Kruger’s teaching at the Coalition may have made sense to you because you recognize the Bible’s authority, but to anyone else his argument carries no weight. Just because the Bible claims to be true, doesn’t make it so. All religions make the same claim. So Kruger’s arguments may have made sense to you and other Christians at the Coalition, but not to others. His argument (or apologetic) is meaningless to most people.
Kruger’s argument, in regard to God swearing by his name as opposed to the Muslim God swearing by created things like mountains or stars, makes no logical sense either. If God is truly God, it doesn’t matter what he swears by. What he swears by doesn’t invalidate whether he is God or not. If the God of the Bible (the Christian God) swears by his name, or a star, or a mountain, it doesn’t change the fact that God is God. Nor does it change the reality that the Muslim God is truly God for the Muslim. Is Kruger trying to say our God is a better God because he swears by bigger and better things? His argument falls short of proving anything. And, of course, Islamic theologians will propose their own arguments to demonstrate why their God (Allah) is the one true God.
Then you suggest, John, that the Bible is the voice of the Living God. Muslims and Hindu’s make the same claim. They would never entertain the ridiculous suggestion that the God whom they worship is dead, and would just as persuasively suggest that the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the very voice of the living God.