Socius

I agree. Free will and God being in control are contradictory. If free will truly exists, God cannot assure the end result. Simply put, if God has all the power we have no power at all - no free will. It is better to think of God as creatively persuading us towards the right decision, rather than coercing us. This persuasion however is not going to always succeed as it is dependent upon our free response. Being open to God, attempting to hear his "voice" (so to speak) is what I think prayer and mediatation is all about. It's allowing one to persuaded by God, not forced by God to do anything. Furthermore, if God is in control and pulling all the strings then God is responsible for sin. It appears strange to me that God would be in control in regards to what job we may have, but lets sin run rampant in our world. Sin exists because God could not prevent it from happening.

Though there is similarity and both are related in some ways, many see a distinction between Jesus' baptism and Christian baptism. The ordinance given in Matthew 28:19-20 is not regarded the same as John's baptism. If I remember correctly N.T. Wright sees covenant as addressing the question of what God is doing in the world in regards to the situation of evil. The focus is on the present as well as the future. Evil is a reality now, so what will God do in the future to restore justice, order and peace? Involved in this process is God's "elect." God has chosen a people, making a covenant with them. Through this people God will act to restore creation. This act of restoration involves Israel remaining clean and pure (that is free from sin). The sacrificial system has its purpose here. It was not the means of entering the covenant, as the covenant came by grace, rather the sacrificial system is a means to stay in covenant. For Wright, this is important for understanding Paul. I think Wright gives greater emphasis of covenant in this more corporate sense, though he does not entirely ignore the individual aspect of covenant. Without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think Wright would argue that individual sin has consequences for the greater community's relationship with God and must also be dealt with. That is why both corporate and individual sacrifice are included in the Hebrew bible. I guess this is based on the sound logic that a community is not just a collective group, but a collective group of individuals. What God will do for the nation God will also do for the individuals within that nation. In regards then to salvation within a covenantal framwork Wright seems to argue that a link should be made with the teachings of the Old Testament prophets. They believed in deliverance from their enemies (which included hostile nations). Their salvation in particular was that from exile. The restoration of creation should also not be missed here. I'm not exactly sure how Wright speaks of this (that is, how literal) but others similar to Wright have interesting ideas. The resurrection of Jesus was evidence that the new age was ushered in, or at least will be ushered in soon (at the destruction of the Temple). Complete salvation will come at the physical resurretion of all believers. It does not have so much to do with going to heaven when we die. At this event (the resurrection) exile and misery will be brought to an end.

Could one reason why Jesus never wrote anything was because his ministry proposed the end of all things? His ministry was apocalyptic in nature, therefore there would be no need to write anything down because he believed his message was only for his people and his generation. Jesus seemed unwilling to go beyond Israel with his message and talked about an immanent consumation of all things. As years passed and the end did not seem to come, his followers chose to write the gospels in order to pass down Jesus' teaching.

If infants can not be baptised were they not better off under the old covenant? Circumcised infants were considered members of God's covenant. Under the new covenant, disallowing infants baptism for me is like saying they can not be members of God's covenant. I tend to think that credo-baptism came into prominence because baptism was no longer read within the paradigm of a Jewish familial system. It's interesting that the above mentioned groups came into their own once the enlightenment was having an impact. The enlightenment brought with it a greater sense of individuality. This would have helped the credo-baptist cause.

It would have to be all those movie stars that are into Scientology. It will be like killing 2 birds with one stone for someone like Robertson. Not only will he fracture Scientology but he will help in the demise of Hollywood all at the same time. Now whose on that list? - John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Lisa-Marie Presley, etc.

Hartshorne is recognising the hole that classical theism has dug itself in regarding its doctrine of an immutable God For example... Anselm says "Although it is better for thee to be compassionate, passionless, than not to be these things; how art thou compassionate and at the same time passionless? For if thou art passionless thou dost not feel sympathy and if thou dost not feel sympathy thy heart is not wretched from sympathy for the wretched; but this is to be compassionate...Thou art compassionate in terms of our experience and not compassionate in terms of thy being...When thou beholdest us in wretchedness we experience the effect of compassion, but thou dost not experience the feeling" Aquinas says, "For in God there are no passions. Now love is a passion. Therefore love is not in God." Accoridng to the idea of an immutable God if God sympathises with us he can be moved. But for classical theism to say God can be moved is to say God is not perfect. That's the extreme that classical theism has taken their logic. Of course the idea of prayer seems to contradict the idea that God is immutable.

Anyone read Charles Hartshorne's "Ominpotence and other Theological Mistakes"? Hartshorne says there are 6 common mistakes that classical theist's make about God. These mistakes are: 1. God is absolutely perfect and therefore unchangeable 2. God is omnipotent 3. God is omniscient 4. God is unsympathetically good 5. We receive immortality after death 6. Revelation is infallible

I've got this book and have read most of it. Your right the book is "pretty basic." I find Spong's arguments simplistic most of the time. I find that Spong generalises too much (e.g. when he makes the claim and tries to argue that Paul was a homosexual). I sympathise with Spong's sentiments but think that he leaves himself open for harsh criticism simply by the way he argues. At least in his new book he brings to our consciousness the "terrible/sinful" texts that exist in Scripture - passages that fundamentalists and conservatives need to deal with but often try to avoid. For that he has done well. However, I still think that we would get more by reading people like Borg and Crossan.

Hi! I am a 33 year old male single from Melbourne, Australia. I have posted here a few times (not that many) but not for a while as I've been busy working and studying, so I haven't had much time. Hopefully I can get back into a bit more now. I teach music (am a classical guitar player) and study theology. I have a Roman Catholic background, though for a period of time did spend some of it in a Pentecostal AOG church and then in Presbyterian church. The last few years i have been influenced by Process thought. I guess you could say I hold to process theism. I reject theistic supernaturalism and favour theistic naturalism. I love my sport, especially Aussie Rules Football.

When fundy's are shown errors and contradictions in the Bible they eventually leave dealing with the text at hand and begin arguing a particular system. They begin to tell you how it is illogical to embrace a faith that has errors and inaccuracies in it. They begin to talk about an absolute God that has absolute laws that perfectly communicates this in the scriptures. They talk about how one must accept all or nothing for if one error is found nothing can be believed, etc, etc, etc. In the meantime passages are no longer discussed. And this from those who believe in Sola Scriptura!

What I forgot to mention in that Billy Graham account is that his friend Chuck Templeton, left the Christian faith.

I have this study Bible and highly recommend it. It is the NRSV with Apocrypha. It includes study notes, excursuses, some topical essays having to do with interpretation. Scholars that contribute are those leading in their field. Before each book there is an introduction with structure of the book concerned. If anyone is interested in OT, I recommend "Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annnotations" by A. F. Campbell and M. A. Obrien. It is the first five books Genesis to Deuteronomy, though the later book contains only 4 verses. It's divided into J, E, P source (that's why Deut has only a handful of verses, Leviticus and Numbers also only include verses that pertain to J, E, P). In this text you can read J as one whole, E as a whole, likewise with P. It's a different way to read the Pentateuch, giving one a feel in the way that Historical critics are thinking.

re: Billy Graham the latest Christian History magazine had an interesting article on Billy Graham, titled "Billy Graham's Bible Dilemma" According to the article, in 1949 "Graham's faith wavered." He began questioning the gospel as he new it after reading Reinhold Niebuhr and Karl Barth. The main issue was the reliability of Scripture - "The Bible's seeming contradictions haunted Graham." An evangelist friend of his Charles Templeton enrolled at Princeton Theological Seminary inviting Graham to join him. Graham did not want to go to Princeton but mentioned to Templeton that he would go to Oxford if Templeton would also join him - "But Templeton had his eyes set on Princeton alone." Templeton became persuaded by liberal theology telling his friend "Billy, you're 50 years out of date." I quote the following at length... "But Graham was not prepared to surrender just yet. 'Chuck, look, I haven't a good enough mind to settle these questions,' Graham said with characteristic humility. 'The finest minds in the world have looked and come down on both sides of these questions. I don't have the time, the inclination, or the set of mind to pursue them. I have found that if I say, 'the Bible says, and 'God says' I get results. I have decided I am not going to wrestle with these questions any longer.'" Templeton accused Graham of not thinking - of comitting "intellectual suicide." Graham was put at some ease when he encountered Henrietta Mears. The article says that she was one who "understood liberal theology." Though put at ease, many questions were left unanswered for Graham. Graham's burden lifted when he confessed to God "Father, I am going to accept this (the Bible) as thy Word - by faith!...I'm going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be your inspired Word." The rest is history.

The reality is however, there are people that do have a closer physical attraction and connection to others of the same sex. The reality is homosexual couples do meet the needs of each other and complement each other as heterosexual couples do. The reality is homosexuals are just as committed to one another as heterosexuals are. The reality is denying a person their sexual orientation is unhealthy for that person and contributes to problems, in some cases suicide. The reality is that in many cases marriage is about our desires (1 Corinthians 7:36). One needs to consider that during NT times homosexuality was not part of the vocabulary and that the behaviour often translated “homosexual” in Scripture was a behaviour that was seen as threat to the social structures of the time. When Paul condemns homosexuality for example, he was not thinking of the act in regards to relationships, he was thinking in terms of uncontrolled behaviour that was disruptive to that community. Paul would probably not have known nor understood homosexual behaviour in a manner that two of the same sex could be in a long term committed relationship. Because of this "homosexual" behaviour was condemned. For Paul’s time the social implications were different, serving a different purpose. Paul did not intend to create further barriers between social groups. Good point considering polyamy is found in the Bible (Gen. 4:19-25; Gen. 26:34-35; Gen. 28, etc, etc). One also wonders why 1 Timothy 3:2 specifically says that the overseer should be the husband of only one wife. Why? How many wives could one expect him to have? Yet Christians are adamant that polygamy is wrong. Are conservatives thinking progressively on this issue? And what if we Christians go as missionaries to a culture where polygamy is accepted? Do we force them to gave up their spouses despite the fact that that particular social structure may depend on polygamous marriages for their livelihood?

I think it is obvious that Jesus and the early Christians were progressive in outlook. The manner in which Jesus spoke against the Temple, his eating with sinners suggest this. The apostles were also progressive in the way they changed their opinion about the relevance of circumcision. (I doubt Jesus taught anything about not requiring circumcision anylonger, the change came with the disciples). An example of Jesus' progressive thinking is also found on Matthew 19. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus refers back to the creation narrative Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to argue that the expressed will of God is for husband and wife to be one flesh. Furthermore, “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt 3:6). At this point we should note that the Pharisees replied by asking why did Moses allow for a certificate of divorce (19:7)? This question suggests that the Pharisees understood that what Jesus was saying seemed to be a contradiction as to what Moses allowed, therefore they wanted clarification (really they wanted to trap Jesus). Jesus’ response was that Moses permitted divorce as a concession. It was not how it was meant to be in the beginning, but because of the Jew’s hardened heart Moses allowed men to divorce their wives (v.8). The only exception for divorce was marital unfaithfulness (v.9). There is no reason to suggest that Moses’ concession changed God’s original intention for humanity. God hates divorce - it is not in accord with his will. The creation account (as Jesus argued from) reveals this. Divorce was never intended to be normal. However, it was given to avoid abuse. What we have here is a recollection of Deut 24, which according to Jesus, cannot be satisfactorily harmonised with God’s expressed will for man and woman from creation. The writer of Deut 24 has put in a clause that allows for an action (divorce) which is not truly reflected in God’s expressed will as revealed in creation. A paraphrase of the issue might go something like this, “Whatever God has combined let no man separate, but because of the abuse that is going around I (the prophet) will permit divorce for certain situations.” Therefore we have in early Jewish tradition a verse that goes against what God originally had intended for mankind. And for Jesus this seemed fine. So not allow Jesus and the apostles show evidence of progressive thought, but likewise do the early prophets of Israel's history. This is something that the church nowadys need to consider seriously.