Course evaluation results

Thanks to everyone who completed a course evaluation. The results of the 26 surveys returned were:


1. Depth of content covered:
not deep enough <> too deep
1:
2: **
3: ************
4: ********
5: *

2. Breadth of material covered for the course subject matter:
too broad <> too shallow
1:
2: *
3: ******************
4: ***
5:

3. Biblical references:
not enough <> too many
1:
2: **
3: ******************
4: **
5:

4. More guest speakers? Y=6 / N=5
Suggested speakers: Peter Chu, Nolan

5. More time for small group discussions? Y=11 / N=6

6. Will you be in town for the summer? Y=11 / N=2

7. Suggestions for other courses. Check all that apply:
8__ Church history
8__ Baptist distinctives
12_ Different denominations
12_ Theology of worship
17_ Knowing God’s will and our calling
15_ Evangelism and apologetics
11_ Christians in the workplace
4_ Book of the Bible studies. Which one(s)? _Revelations______
7_ Bible character studies. Who? John the Baptist, Hosea, Job
3_ Bible Experience (audio listening to the Bible)
9_ Dating and marriage
3_ Group discussion of a Christian book.
Which one? Mere Christianity
10_ Small group leaders training & community building

8. Suggestions for any other Sunday School topics: Leadership (2), discipleship, how to read the Bible

9. Suggested start time: _2_ 11:00 am; _9_ 11:15 am; _12_ 11:30 am

Christian Beliefs "quiz" answers

In today's class, we took up the quiz distributed at the beginning of the course last fall. I would assert each statement is true, some for "tricky" reasons, other for deep theological reasons. Thanks to those who returned their quiz at the beginning of the course. Attached is a tabulation of those who turned in their quiz.

	T	F
1. Christians believe in creeds.	10	5
2. Theology is the "Queen of Sciences".	6	12
3. Theology is faith seeking understanding.	15	2
4. Faith is a rational act.	8	10
5. “Trinity” is not a biblical term; it is not found in the Bible.	13	6
6. Omnipresence is a subordinate property of God.	11	8
7. We didn't always understand God to be omnipresent.	8	10
8. God is not omnipresent; he is not in hell.	8	10
9. There exists a logically correct proof for the existence of God.	8	10
10. While illogical, the Christological argument for the existence of God wins the most converts.	5	11
11. Creation & reason contribute to our understanding of theology & God and not just scripture.	16	1
12. Sin is not evil.	2	15
13. Jesus went to hell.	11	7
14. Total depravity simply means we can't approach God ourselves.	12	4
15. People are not inherently evil.	8	11
16. The fall is a happy event because it ultimately shows God's grace.	11	4
17. Being moral and living a good life is not enough for God.	14	4
18. Faith alone is insufficient for salvation; God's grace is needed.	14	2
19. Not everyone will go to heaven.	19	0
20. Most Christians were baptized as infants.	4	14
21. There is an unpardonable sin that God will not forgive.	8	10
22. Pascal's Wager correctly applies modern game theory on why someone should accept Christ.	2	12
23. People have gone to heaven without knowing Christ.	12	6
24. Baptist beliefs differ from church to church, even within the BCOQ.	13	3
25. Christians cannot study the Bible alone; they must be in a church.	9	9
26. There are cults that believe in biblical inerrancy.	15	2
27. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that there are no metaphors and hyperbole in the Bible.	10	5
28. The Gospel of Judas is a historical document.	8	8
29. God is the father; church is the mother.	4	14
30. Closed communion means no-one outside the church can participate in communion.	14	5
31. We will see the Pope in heaven.	12	1
32. There is little theological basis for Christmas celebrations.	13	5

Fellowship

We broke into 3 groups for discussions on "fellowship": 1) a theology group; 2) a group that pretended to be a fellowship committee or a small group leader; 3) a group that pretended to be a church board member that was responsible for fellowship in a church.

The theology group was given the following questions to answer: Why fellowship? What is fellowship? Define “Agape”. Define “Koinonia”. What is the relationship between worship & fellowship? What is the relationship between fellowship & evangelism? The group unfortunately didn't get beyond the first two questions. As a large group we discussed agape as a Greek word meaning sacrificial love. It is possibly a Christian invention; rarely and disputably used outside of Christian writings. It is illustrated by 1 John 4:10 and Rom 5:5. Koinonia means community, communion or "joint participation". Jude 3 illustrates this with the Greek word "koine" for "we share" as in "the salvation we share". Rom 15:7 tells us that through the act of fellowship, it can also be an act of worship. 1 John 3:17 helps illustrate social concern which should be part of evangelism.

The second group had many good ideas on what a fellowship or small group does. Common things include bearing each other's burdens (Gal 6:2), encouragement (Heb 10:25a) and hospitality (Heb 13:2, 1 Pet 4:9). Acts 2:42 in NIV is entitled “The Fellowship of the Believers” and adds learning, fellowship, communion and prayer.

The administration of fellowship at the church level includes supporting the various groups in the church through leadership training and other means, identifying needs not being met by existing groups and potentially starting new groups or identifying fellowship opportunities outside of the local church.

Functions of church - worship

The functions of a church may be crudely categorized as worship, discipleship, fellowship and outreach. This can be easily remembered as the directions up, down, in and out. We broke into small groups which pretended to be a church committee responsible for one of these functions. The committees gave a mission statement for their department and what activities would be carried out. We started with worship and spent the rest of the class discussing that.

Worship is our response to God for who He is. We can't be bored in worship because it is not about us. We're not suppose to get something from worship; we are giving to God. While praising God for what he has done is great; it is even better for us to praise God for who He is. (And yes, we learn who God is from what He has done.) Our in-class worship committee quickly concluded that worship subsumes all the other committees. They are correct: not only are the different functions of church related, but all activities center on worship.

Parachurch

We attempted to distinguish between church and parachurch. We wound up going back to our Nicene Creed definition of a church and most non-church but Christian groups don't meet all the criteria. For example, CCF doesn't meet the "catholic" requirement of being as open and inclusive as possible. CCF's sponsoring parachurch organization has a good writeup on the relationship between the local church and CCF in their CCF Handbook. (The author is a former Deacon at TCBC before he was sent to our daughter church.)

Another perspective on this issue is to "follow the money". What counts as tithing? The secular econcomist concludes that a logical giver should only give to a single charity after careful consideration of the options. This is because if the donations are small, the world hasn't changed after the first donation thus whatever reasons made the first donation valid still applies. Donations to a second charity means the giver is purchasing psychological benefits. (See "Giving your all" by Steven Landberg in Slate Magazine, Jan 11, 1997. Disclaimer: this is a secular article on charitable giving, not a Christian view.)

How does this apply to Christian giving? At the very least we need to carefully examine our motives. We need to answer the rational economist's analysis as well as to God. One of the students jumped to the extreme application of this logic: most of us are already giving to our local church first thus we should only give to our local church. While I'm not advocating this extreme position, it certainly forces us to think.

We then looked at the view of churches and para-church organizations. Not surprisingly, churches take a firm stand that tithing is to the local church. (See for example Saddleback's view.) Parachurch organizations do not oppose the primacy of the local church but leave open the possibility of tithing to parachurch groups. (See for example, Urbana.)

This is an extremely complex subject with no easy answers. My personal view is that the Holy Spirit is working through the plethora of parachurch organizations to build unity across the diverse Protestant denominations. Previous human attempts at ecumenical unity have been superseded by a de facto emergent universal church.

Church

We tried to define "church" and started with the Nicene Creed statement, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".

There is "one" universal church of all who are called to Christ, regardless of our geographic and doctrinal differences.

"Holy" refers to Christ as well as the nature of the church. We had a good side discussion on the nature of sanctification and holiness. This tied in well to sermon on the "Last Breakfast" where our resurrected Lord progressively asked Peter to "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep".

Lower case "catholic" refers to "universal" (and not Roman Catholic) and relates to "one". We emphasized the open and inclusive nature of churches. We had a fun discussion on blonde Jesus's and what if TCBC stood for "Toronto Caucasian Baptist Church".

Finally "apostolic" links us through time to the early New Testament church. Our practices should be consistent with that biblical example.

Our textbook has a lengthy section on these so-called "four marks" of a church. (See pp 230-239.)

Holy Spirit and Knowing God's Will

Simon started the discussion with the following handout:

Which of the following decisions do you think need the Spirit’s guidance?

1. Whether to wake up early in the morning?

2. What to eat for breakfast?

3. What should I wear today?

4. Whether to study first or to have some fun first?

5. What fun things should I do today?

6. Who should I talk to today?

7. Whether to listen to my parents or not?

8. Whether to set some time apart for private prayer?

9. Whether to get married?

10. What job should I apply?

11. What school should I apply to?

12. All decisions are important

What methods do you use in seeking a decision under the Spirit’s guidance?

1. Cast lot or flip a coin

2. Ask my peers

3. Ask some “more matured” person in the church

4. Seek for “close/open” doors

5. Go to a psychic

6. Flip thru the bible

7. Go for a walk by the lake

8. Waiting for a sign

9. Make a pros and cons list

10. Nothing unusual

Which of the following are indicators of a correct decision made under the Spirit’s guidance?

1. “close/open” doors

2. Peace of mind

3. Feeling disturbed

4. There are more pros than cons

5. Approvals by peers

6. Approvals by “more matured” people in the church

7. Signs for decisions are indicators

8. Success and positive consequences

9. Prove text from the bible

10. I don’t need any indicators, I know I am always right

We then concluded with this handout:

Living doctrine of the Holy Spirit:

1. HS is a person like Jesus.

To know him is not just to know information about him; it is to know about his characters, his habits and the manners he feels, thinks and behaves. Much like the way we know Jesus. In fact the HS “Universalized and internalize the presence of Jesus Christ and makes him available and accessible to everybody everywhere.” (John Stott, sermon at All Souls Church, London, England, 18 Aug 2002)

Therefore the approach I have taken has been a more experience (living) rather then factual (informational). Doctrine and creeds are meant to be lived as well as to believe.

2. HS works through agents. Agents can be things or people. Words (living, written, spoken) are one of his favorite medium. People are a close second, which includes people we don’t like and people we don’t know.

3. HS worked in the past; is working at present and will continue to work in the future.

It is a very good idea to learn about the HS from his work in the past. Past performance is a good reference to construct present and future expectations. The past works of the HS are common known as church history and scripture.

4. HS works to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.

The prophets in the OT and the promise of Jesus in John 14 are some evidence for this. It is a good balance criterion for us to see how the HS is working in us.

5. HS works primarily to align us with reality. Reality is one with God in it not the one without God.

Guidance of the HS

HS works in align our will to God’s will.

Jesus in Gethsemane, “Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mk 14:36)

Cultivating the soil – preparation for decision

Understanding God’s will

Understanding your will

Separating the weeds from the wheat – making the discernment

All decisions are important but some has more serious consequences.

Some decisions are more important at this time for you than others.

If your decision base is expanding, meaning you are seeking the will of God in more and more areas in your life, that is a sign of growth.

How you learn to learn will determine a lot of your future. If you learn just to get by now then in your future you’ll just get by. If you learn to tough it out, you will tough it out.

There is no certainty in answers; otherwise you’ll be either God or the Pope.

Fanning the fire - sustaining the choice

Most important decisions are not made in one day.

Your decision or discerning made in faith and community is sustainable.

Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture

We started the class by listening to the first 20 minutes of a talk by Eugene Peterson (translator of The Message version of the Bible).

Simon continued and gave the following handouts:

From Eugene Peterson, “Eat the book”

“Reading the scripture formatively, reading in order to live”

“In order to read the scripture adequately and accurately, it is necessary at the same time to live them. Not to live them as a prerequisite to reading them, and not to live them in consequence of reading them, but to live them as we read them, the living and reading reciprocal, body language and spoke words, the back-and-forthness assimilating the reading to the living, the living to the reading, Reading the Scriptures is not an activity discrete from living the gospel but one integral to it. It means letting another have a say in everything we are saying and doing, It is as easy as that. And as hard.”

Suggestions for Bible reading:

Read Convincingly	These revelations come in words. There are meanings behind the words. There is a God behind the meanings. “All Scripture is God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16a)
Read Carefully	These words come to us is “concrete” time (history) and “concrete” space (language and culture). Let the text speaks for itself. (text referring to the written, the spoken and the living) Let the complete text speaks for itself. “"Do you understand what you are reading?" (Acts 8:30)
Read Communally	These words were given to us not me, so let us read together. These words were given to people across time and space, so let us understanding together. Reading these words alone may make me a saint but living these words together may make us a church. “Make my joy complete by being like-minded” (Philippians 2:20)
Read Livingly	These words were given to be read and lived over and over again. The reading and the living cannot be separated as each informs the other. To read these words is to live these words and to live these words is to read these words. You will need some time to read all these words, even more time to understanding and a life time to live by them. “Thrill to God’s Word, you chew on Scripture day and night.” (Psalm 1:2) “You word is a Lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” (Psalm 119:105)

We then discussed:

The injunctions upon women in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 are: 1. Timeless truths and normative for today. 2. I fall somewhere between No. 1 and No. 3. 3. Culturally shaped but, with proper interpretation and transfer, for today; e.g., we can learn from how Paul addressed a situation with uninstructed women in Ephesus. 4. I fall somewhere between No. 3 and No. 5. 5. Needed for early Christians, bound in the first century, but not for today.

Tattoos:

1. Are forbidden because of Leviticus 19:28. 2. I fall somewhere between No. 1 and No. 3. 3. Are forbidden in Leviticus as idolatrous marks, which we know from study of the ancient Near East. 4. I fall somewhere between No. 3 and No. 5. 5. Are permissible, because the purity codes are not for Christians today.

Homosexuality's prohibitions in the Bible are:

1. Permanent prohibitions reflecting God's will. 2. I fall somewhere between No. 1 and No. 3. 3. Culturally shaped, still normative, but demanding greater sensitivity today. 4. I fall somewhere between No. 3 and No. 5. 5. A purity-code violation that has been eliminated by Christ.

The Bible is:

1. God's exact words for all time. 2. I fall somewhere between No. 1 and No. 3. 3. God's message (instead of exact words) for all time. 4. I fall somewhere between No. 3 and No. 5. 5. God's words and message for that time but need interpretation and contextualization to be lived today.

Class cancelled Easter Sunday

Happy Easter! Class will resume March 30.

Holy Spirit in Revelation (Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit)

Simon continued on the Holy Spirit and wrote:

We started with another observation of the work of the Holy Spirit.: he helps us perceive what the “real” reality is.

This was illustrated through an extract from an interview with Eugene Peterson. Peterson was asked to join Bono for a few days, just to hang out together. When asked why he turned Bono down he said he was facing a deadline to translate the OT portion of the Message. When pressed again by the interviewer how he could have turn down a chance to hang out with Bono. He answered, “It was Isaiah”. To Peterson, Isaiah is more “real” and thus more important to hang out with Isaiah than with Bono.

HS prompted us to see the real world which is a world with a spiritual slant, a world that God rules. This really is the “real” world and not the sex, drug and rock and roll world that was promoted by the media on a daily basis. It is different and often more difficult to live in a “real” world. Being real is what our faith is about.

With similar intention but a different channel of communication (written words), the scripture also seeks to show us the “real” world and the HS also has a hand in shaping that.

(Our discussions so far and will continue going to be rather pragmatic and gear towards having a grasp of the implications of the issues rather than being informed of details of various arguments.)

The following extract from “Holy Writings, Sacred Text – The Canon in Early Christianity” By John Barton (p1) was used as a reading to start the discussion.

The formation of the Christian Bible is a story with neither beginning nor end. The first Christians already had a scripture, inherited from Judaism, whose origins time has concealed; while still today the edges of the biblical canon are blurred, with old disputes about the 'deuterocanonical' books asleep perhaps, but by no means dead.

But no one would deny that there was a critical period for the canonization of the New Testament portion of this Bible. Its outer limits are marked by the life and teaching of Jesus, and the series of fourth- and fifth-century council decisions which settled all but a few marginal uncertainties about the contents of the New Testament. Though the evidence is scrappy, circumstantial, and often obscure, most of it has been known for the last two centuries, and the basic texts are already to be found as an appendix to the Hulsean Lectures of Christopher Wordsworth, delivered in 1848 and published in the same year. Bruce M. Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament adds further material and a wealth of secondary literature; but at its heart lie the same texts that Wordsworth discussed.

These and a few other texts may well be called canonical themselves, and no theory about the biblical canon has any hope of success unless it finds a place for them.

But though the texts are necessary, they are plainly not sufficient; for there remains little agreement on their interpretation.

What are the new disputes? Is there an “end to the canon story”? Recent discussion of Gospel of Judas, or other documents alluded in the Novel/Movie “Da Vinci Code” are just examples of this never ending story. The heart of the disputes is about “new” info in these historical documents. Conspiracy theorists question whether the decision was hiding what may be detrimental to the established church. However, does the new information really “update” our gospel? Does these new info add or diminish our faith in any substantial way? Do these documents has enough claims to be authentically “inspired” scriptures? These questions in fact points right at the criteria that were used to determine what should be accepted into the Canon.

At this point several historical facts were introduced. Jesus did have a certain view of scripture as indicated in Luke 24:44. The three fold division was indeed the division used in the Hebrew bible (Moses-Torah, prophets-prophetic and Psalms-writings). It may not indicate the complete OT canon but at the very least a rudimentary that includes the core of the canon was alluded to. Marcion in his abridge canon (Luke, Acts and most Pauline epistles) certainly played a role (may not be the deterministic role) in prompting the “what should be included” question. And Montanus in his prophetic utters also contributed to “what should not be included” question.

We then read gospel Thomas section 11 and psalm 151, as well as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 to get a first hand look the issues. The fact that a certain passage appeal to us (e.g. the John passages should not be the sole criteria for inclusion.

As a conclusion the idea of canon being “Historically closed but theologically open” was introduced. The good news is for almost two thousand years the “core” has not changed at all. We can have the comfort of the HS at work even though the discussion continues.

A more stern warning was issued against the practice of not respecting the canon in the practice of canon within a canon. Earlier scholars has used the method of collecting “cited” documents in early Christian writing to help determine which are the “canonized” documents. Despite continuing discussing of this method, it does indicate the significant placed on certain documents. It would be very interesting to use the same method and rummage through our sermons, bible study notes and devotion material and see what conclusions we may have. Songs of songs, Judges and Jude may well be questioned by future researchers looking back at our usage of “canonized scripture”.

The questions do not end with canon. Itself as indicated in last sentence of the Barton quote. What of interpretation? Does the inspiration of the text continue through interpretations? How shall we come to some consensus on the various interpretations? Should we then include the interpretation as scripture as well? If inspiration from text to interpretation is a spectrum then where should we draw the line? On the other hand, if inspiration is distinct from interpretation then again where should we draw the line?

No answer was proposed but just a pragmatic caution. We should not interpret the scripture alone without the community. We should consult commentaries (earlier interpreters) and peers (present interpreters) at the very least. Jesus asked us to pray privatly. He did not ask us to read the scripture in private.

Appendix (some links that may be of interests):

• The discovery of the Gospel of Judas
• April Deconick Challenges the National Geography translation
• Several post discussing several translation issues on Dr. Darrel Bock’s Blog
• Translations of other early Christian writings

Holy Spirit in Fellowship

Simon taught and gave the following class summary:

The original plan was to explore some teaching of the Holy Spirit based on the creedal statement (Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit - revelation) and the doxology (fellowship and guidance) in that order. It just happened that this Sunday Tanya and Yu-Ling was so “inspiring”, so instead we switched to fellowship in the spirit impromptu.

The class was conducted in two parts. The first part lay out some teachings and the second part was to experience the fellowship of the Spirit in practice by engaging in “spirit” guided conversation and prayer with fellow brothers and sisters.

1. The work of the Holy Spirit as to comfort and to disturb (Jn 14:1,26, OT prophets)
Q: “How do you describe the work of the Holy Spirit?”
A: “He comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comforted.”
I was taught this a long time ago and had not forgotten this ever since. I think it is a good board useful summary of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is also a good guide to have a “spirit” guided fellowship conversation. Ask your brother or sister whether he/she is in a comforted or disturbed state. If he/she was in a comforted state then ask whether you can disturb him/her. If he/she was in a disturbed state, then ask how you can comfort him/her.

2. Be aware not all “special experiences” are spirit guided or spirit guided for the reason of the kingdom. In I Sam 10:11 and I Sam 19:25, two cases of spirit led prophesying by Saul were recorded. For an external observer both incidents were “special” prophesying experience but the scripture in the context (read some verse before and after) made us aware that in the first case the prophecy by Saul were favorable but the latter case Saul was not in favor. (In fact the turn point was recorded in Ch 15 when the Spirit left Saul) Sure, both incident were Spirit guided but to the person involved (Saul in this case) the intentions were very different.

3. Not all spontaneity or novelty are spirit driven, spirit is a spirit of order and discipline as well.

4. The true test of spirit is stated very clearly in I Jn 4:1-3 “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”. This brings back the whole discussion we had concerning the incarnation.

5. Phil 2:1-4 asked us to be humble in our approach. We are to seek what is best for others. We are implied to take some risk of vulnerability in order to achieve fellowship. Humility and risk taking are both central ideas when we try to initiate genuine fellowship.

We then broke into groups of three and did a “spirit” guided fellowship conversation with the comfort/disturb model.

We ended the class with a prayer time that ended with the Lord’s Prayer together.

Holy Spirit

Simon started us with an opening exercise to brainstorm in small groups on words associated with the Holy Spirit and then pick the top 3 for sharing with the whole class. As a class we wrote down: part of the Trinity (4 groups mentioned this), everywhere, unified - brings together, divine, transcendent, intimate, guidance (x3), grace, pregnancy, gift, discerning light, Holy Spirit of God, conviction, counsellor (x2), healing, enlightenment, Pentecost.

The top item mentioned was that the Holy Spirit was part of the Trinity. Interestingly enough, the term "Trinity" never appears in the Bible. 2 Cor 12:14 and the baptism of Jesus are one of the few places in the Bible where God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned together. The original Nicene Creed barely mentions the Holy Spirit. Filoque (Latin for "from the son" and "and") refers to the debate on whether the Holy Spirit is just from the Father or "and" "from the Son".

Our joking addition of "pregnancy" to the list of words associated with the Holy Spirit is reflected in the Apostle's Creed: "conceived by the Holy Spirit" refers to the incarnation of Jesus. We have already discussed how Jesus is an example of revelation. The Holy Spirit also has a critical role in the revelation of the Holy Scriptures.

Our homework for the next few weeks is to identify personal experiences of the Holy Spirit and justify why we think it is an act of the Holy Spirit.

One calling

We discussed whether a pastor's calling is different from the rest of us. Page 271 of the textbook explains the post-reformation view of work and calling: we are all called in the same way and it is no holier to be a pastor than to work in a "secular" profession. This view leads to the so-called "Protestant work ethic" and this is arguably linked to the development of the modern world. While debatable, the fact that it is even debated only emphasizes the importance of the impact of the concept of predestination on our present society.

Our group discussion was to share on our own personal calling, especially the process by which we have determined or are determining our calling.

Calling

Pastor Tanya was our special guest today and she shared her story of her calling. Based on this practical example we tried to determine general principles used to determine our calling: seek after God, scriptural basis for our choices, affirmation of community, circumstances, experiences, gifts, passions, prayerful consideration and rarely "fleecing" (Judges 6:36-40).

We tied our understanding of calling back to our recent discussion on election, predestination and free will. The glossary of our book equates election to calling. The glossary then defines calling as "An invitation or summons God issues to people, initially to follow him but then also to perform specific tasks in the world or the church." A calling is not our choice, but God's summons. We looked at the dictionary definitions of "vocation" ("calling") and "profession" (of our faith). While modern usage is in the secular workplace, these words have deeply Christian origins and tie back to God's call for our salvation.

Calvinism

Some form of Calvinism tends to be the position of many conservative Protestants so we took a closer look. Many verses above and beyond those given last week talk about "chosen", "election", "foreknowledge" and "predestination". (Mt 22:14, Mt 24:31, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Rom 8:29-30, Rom 8:32,33, Rom 9:11, Rom 11:7, 1 Cor 1:27, Eph 1:4, 5, 11, Tit 1:1, 1 Pet 1:1-2, 1 Pet 2:9) Key theologians and teachers support the Calvinist world view: John Calvin (p 315 of the textbook), Westminster Confession of Faith, Charles Spurgeon, J.I. Packer (even though our textbook gives a balanced view). Christian Theology by Millard J Erickson takes a more subtle view, "God first decides to provide the atoning work of Jesus and then decides to elect some to receive salvation", which is still a Calvinist view.

The so-called "5 points of Calvinism" was briefly discussed to illustrate this world view. Calvin himself never articulated these points and the points themselves were made in rebuttal to other teachings so these points should not be thought of as a definitive "creed". However, they do help illustrate a world view that utterly depends on the sovereignty of God's omnipotence, even in our salvation. The points are typically summarized with the acronym, "TULIP":

• Total depravity: we ourselves cannot approach God on our own (it does not mean we are maximally evil).
• Unconditional election: God's election of those who are saved is not conditional on any human action
• Limited atonement: Jesus's death is for the elect.
• Irresistible grace: God will work to save those He has chosen.
• Perseverance of the saints: once saved, always saved.

Our small group discussion was to consider the implication of this world view on: i) worship; ii) evangelism; iii) morality; iv) personal calling. For worship, God's absolute sovereignty is an item to be praised. Eph 1:4, 5, 11 are key teaching on predestination yet that whole chapter is nothing more than a passage of praise.

Predestination and free will

We had a class debate on God's sovereign predestination and human free will. While discussions on what we can decide about ourselves and our surroundings are obviously the most practical aspects of this debate, the most significant from a Christian perspective is salvation itself: do we have a choice in our salvation or did God predestined our salvation?

Page 205 of the textbook has a good summary. "Particular" or "limited" atonement means Christ died for the "elect". This is the basic position of the "Calvinist" (after John Calvin). They are supported by many biblical verses. (Mt 22:14, John 15:16, 1 Pet 1:1-2, Eph 1:4, Rom 8:29-30, Mk 13:20, 1 Pet 2:9, Mt 1:21, John 10:15, 26-27, Rom 8:32,33, John 17:24, Mt 20:28).

"Unlimited" or "universal" atonement interprets the verses on election and predestination as meaning the "elect" as those who have chosen belief in the atoning work of Jesus. We distinguished between, atonement which is the work of Christ and salvation, which is our personal acceptance of Christ's atoning working. There is no debate that belief is required for salvation and that God "elected" some. The debate is who is the "elect" and whether we had any choice in whether we believe or not. This is the "Arminian" position and they too are backed by many verses. (John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Cor 5:14, 1 Tim 4:10, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14, Is 53:6, 1 Tim 2:6; even died for those who sinned (Rom 14:15, 1 Cor 8:11, Heb 10:29, 2 Pet 2:1), we need to evangelize: (Mt 24:14, 28:19, Acts 1:8, Tit 2:11), salvation is offered to all (Mt 11:28, 2 Pet 3:9) and Christ died for us “while we were still sinners” Rom 5:8)

"Universal" atonement should not be confused with universal salvation; not all will be saved. The class quickly reconcilled the two points of views: God's absolute omnipotence is not debatable. That foreknowledge, however, is unknown to us and thus we still have free will to choose.

Atonement

We opened by sharing in pairs either our testimonies or the gospel message. No surprise, most people chose to share their testimonies instead of an academic exposition of the gospel. Our testimony is merely our personal understanding of the gospel. The gospel message has been neatly summarized in a number of forms: The Four Spiritual Laws, The Bridge or the "Roman Road" (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9, 5:1, 8:38-39).

"Atonement" was a word coined by William Tyndale when he tried to translate the concept of salvation into English. It comes from making "at one" between humanity and God. Webster's defines it as “the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ”. Of course, today, we have expanded atonement's definition to include the title of an Oscar-nominated film. The word is one of the few words in the English language that is uniquely Christian and theological, not coming from Greek, Latin, or otherwise having other meanings.

What is the gospel can be neatly summarized. The harder question is why did an omnipotent God choose Jesus and the cross as his mechanism for atonement? There is no one simple easy answer. From p 180 of our textbook, "Precisely how the cross deals with human sin is not tied down with any single absolute theory, but we are given a number of models or metaphors": As a ransom that needs to be redeemed (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:6), as a sacrifice in line with the Old Testament teachings (Rom 3:25, Lev 16, Lev 1:4, Is 53:6), as a Law court (Col 2:13-14, Is 42:21) and as a reconciled relationship (2 Cor 5:19, Rom 5:10, Col 1:20) eventually leading to adoption into God's family (John 1:12).

Given our class objective to write our own personal statement of faith, our homework challenge was to write your own "theory of atonement" coming up with your own metaphor for your own personal understanding of how Jesus made us "at one" with God. Comments to this post or direct emails welcomed!

Providence & the "problem of evil"

In order to better understand the impact of sin on creation, we had to look at the basics of creation. Page 66 of the textbook has a good summary of creation as an emanation, construction and artistic expression of God. The more interesting discussion is the on-going providence of God for His creation. Some suggest the original act of providence is in Gen 22:8 when God provides a lamb for Abraham as a sacrifice. Heb 1:3, Col 1:17, Acts 17:25 uses terms like "sustaining", "hold together" and "He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else". My old Sunday School textbook, Know the Truth (by Bruce Milne) states, "Providence asserts that God, having called the world into being, continually sustains, renews and orders it". Medieval monks had a profound understanding of this in their world view. To the question of "Why does it rain?" they would answer "To make the flowers grow." This is a dramatically different view than our modern "scientific" answer of water condensing from rain clouds. Appreciation of God's providence is an important part of our spiritual development. Our class exercise was to re-frame the common event cited during the icebreaker in terms of God's providence.

The Christian view of creation also includes a proper understanding of stewardship. The Genesis imperative to Adam is to take care of creation while acknowledging God as the owner. We've been entrusted with creation; we do not own it. The parable of the talents is the other classic passage on stewardship. Our sinful nature distorts our stewardship.

The so called "problem of evil" is "probably the most difficult intellectual challenge to the Christian faith” (in the book Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson). Why does an omnipotent God allow evil? He is either not good or not all powerful. There are no easy answers. One view is that free will was part of God's intent for us, hence the possibility of evil was allowed. Rom 8:28-29 assures us that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him". They key is in v29, where all these things make us "conformed to the likeness of his Son". God's view of good is not necessarily our view of good. Page 174 of our textbook has a good summary on the problem of pain and suffering, which is related to the problem of evil.

We ended the class with small group discussions on what the world would be like if we were all like Jesus and sinless.

Impact of Sin

We discussed the impacts of sin. In relation to God, sin makes us unfit for God’s presence (Gen 3:23), unable to do God’s will (Jn 8:34, Ro 7:21f), unrighteous, insensitivity to God's word (1 Tim 4:2, Ro 1:21).

In relation to ourselves, sin causes death (Ro 6:23, Gen 2:7), shame (Gen 3:7-8), inner conflict (Ro 7:23), enslavement (Ro 6:17), denial (Gen 3:11-13), self-deceit (Matt 7:3; 2 Sam 12:1-15)

With respect to our fellow people, sin causes conflict and exploitation (James 4:1-2). Of note is that there is a social dimension to sin. The world is inherently corrupt (Jn 7:7, 1 Cor 1:20f, 1 John 5:19b) such that well-meaning Christians cannot solve the world's problems. There will always be hunger, disease, war, etc. Churches have traditionally focussed on converting the sinners from their individual sins. That is not enough as even if there was a society of Christians, there will still be conflict. Thus Christians must also advocate for progressive change in the world.

With respect to the rest of creation, sin resulted in a corruption of our stewardship of the world; hence the pollution and environmental degradation. Worse, work will be difficult (Gen 3:17). (See p. 271 in the textbook on the proper Christian view on work.)

Sin

“Christian Theology” by Millard J Erikson states, “Sin is any lack of conformity, active or passive, to the moral law of God. This may be a matter of act, of thought, or of inner disposition of state.” The first of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-3) can be thought of as an alternate definition of Sin: Sin is simply failure to let God be God. Page 170 of our textbook has a good definition as well.

Sin is not evil. There are many "good" people in this world that are nevertheless sinners. In fact, equating sin to evil, complicates our discussions with non-Christians. Sin is not just a moral concept; it is ultimately a theological concept in our relationship with God.

Rom 5:12-19 and p 202 of the book defines original sin: we are all sinners when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature whether or not we have done anything wrong.

Matt 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-29 define the "unpardonable sin". The simplest interpretation is that the unpardonable sin is deliberately rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit (& implicitly Jesus & God Himself) for our salvation. If we commit this sin, then of course we cannot be saved.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Class is cancelled December 23 and 30. We will resume January 6.

Fact & Significance of the Incarnation

This week, Simon continued with an interactive discussion on the incarnation. We discussed some analogies of the incarnation:

1) The children's sermon at the TCBC retreat a few years back illustrated the incarnation visually: people were coins on an overhead projector showing as circles on the screen. God was a cylinder placed flat showing as a dark bar. When the cylinder was placed on end, God became Jesus and shows on the screen as a circle as well.

2) Computer avatars are representations of our full selves. (Coincidentally the root of "avatar" is "the incarnation of a Hindu diety".)

Thanks to all those who asked questions and participated in the class discussion. Next week's class is an informal lunch in the church basement. Please RSVP to Sam. Class is cancelled Christmas Sunday.

---HANDOUT---

The fact and significant of the Incarnation – second Sunday of Advent 2007

Primary text: Jn 1:1-18

What is incarnation?

What does incarnation means? From what you know can you find an analogy for it?

“In probing into the development structure of mediation as it took shape within the frame of Israel’s distinctive worship of God and its priestly mission to mankind, we find a divine intention persistently at work which has to do both with revelation and reconciliation.” T.F. Torrance in “The Mediation of Christ”

Incarnation as revelation:

“the reason became the reality”
“the spoken word became the living word”
“the medium is the message”

“A two-way movement was involved: an adaptation of divine revelation to the human mind and an adaptation of articulate forms of human understanding and language to divine revelation.” T.F. Torrance in “The Mediation of Christ”

If Christ incarnated is indeed the revelation, then did he “adapt” to the human mind? In other word did he in becoming human “lowered” his divine form?

Independent of the answer to the last question, if Christ incarnated is indeed the revelation, what if any of human understanding was “adapted” to divine revelation?

“Becoming Flesh is the Point of New Creation. The New Creation is the Incarnation, and all those who are in the Incarnate One are in the New Creation.” Scott McKnight

Incarnation as commission

The great commission text:: Mt 28:19-20, Mk 16:15-18, Lk 24:45-49, Acts 1:8, Jn 17:18, Jn 20:21

“He did not touch down like a visitor from outer space, or arrive like an alien bringing his own alien culture with him. He took to himself our humanity, our flesh and blood, our culture. He actually became one of us and experienced our frailty, our suffering and our temptations. He even bore our sin and died our death. And now he sends us ‘into the world’, to identify with others as he identified with us (though without losing our Christian identity), to become vulnerable as he did.” Stott, John R. W, “Christian Mission in the Modern World”

Incarnation as illumination

Many words were used in Jn 1:1-18 to describe the logos, such as life, light, flesh and glory. If we just follow the very obvious connection with the creation account in Genesis and just follow the idea of “light” as “order” in Genesis 1, we see at least one very concrete idea of light into darkness: order out of chaos.

We need to instill order in our life as a reminder of the luminous presences even in the apparent darkness. Sometimes we lost the sense of luminous transcendence, so when we are in the world everyday, we look up and there were no stars, so we return to our own light and ended up continuing in the chaos. But if we see the stars may be we look up long enough to allow Christ some space to come in and transform chaos into order just a little bit.

(Dale Allison interview on CBC radio program Tapestry January 14, 2007)

Incarnation

Our icebreaker was to share a personal Christmas tradition. We started by lighting an Advent candle and reading an Advent prayer. Jn 14:9-11 & 1:14 recapped the divinity and humanity of Jesus. The "word" in Jn 1:1 & 1:14 is associated with God through Gen 1:3 where "God said . . .". "Logos" today is the root of "ology" as in "biology" and implies the study of. It had the same meaning in NT times with the added implication that reason comes from the mind of God, which is purposeful, ordering and generative.

Incarnation as revelation is the epitome of Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message". Jesus is the medium and He is the message. We sat in a circle and the teacher today, Simon, lead from a sitting position to illustrate what Christ did in coming among us instead of speaking down to us.

Incarnation as commission has implications for our approach to the Great Commission and evangelism. Jesus came among us and stayed with us. Neither evangelistic meetings nor short-term missions emulate the incarnation. Lifestyle evangelism and long-term missions are closer.

Incarnation as illumination brings order to our lives. In Dale Allison's talk on CBC about his book, "The Luminous Dusk", he encourages us to get away from the bright city lights to see the stars. If we don't see the stars, we give up, and focus on the artificial lights around us instead. The incarnation implies we should instill divine order into our lives.

Divinity & humanity of Jesus

We had a special joint class of all TCBC adult classes. Ryan Klassen, theology PhD student and Admissions Counsellor at Tyndale Seminary, spoke on how we knew Jesus to be divine and human and why that is significant. We read together again the Apostles Creed which affirmed both Jesus' divinity and humanity. The early creeds were a response to heresies, or incorrect beliefs, succinctly summarizing our beliefs. Heresies regarding Jesus may invariably be categorized as either denying His humanity or His divinity. Our modern church is very knowledgeable about the Bible and Christ yet we are very similar to the secular society we exist in. Ryan challenged us that this is perhaps a sign that the modern church doesn't understand the humanity of Jesus enough. If we did, we would understand how Jesus as a human being would respond to our world.

Ryan had an opportunity before and after class to discuss opportunities at Tyndale. There was apparently some interest from the congregation in the new B.Ed. program as this would be an alternative to existing, crowded teacher's colleges. Thanks again to Ryan for joining us and all the best to him in his future ministries.

Humanity of Jesus

A. Biblical evidence of Jesus’ humanity
1. His human names & titles
Jesus – common name of the era
Mt 18:11, Mt 12:40, Mt 13:37, Son of Man
Mt 1:1, Mt 20:30, Lk.18:38 Son of David
Mt 1:1 Son of Abraham
Jn.6:42 Son of Joseph
2. His own claim - Jn.8:40
3. His human soul - Mt.26:38, Lk.23:46, Jn.13:21
4. Old Testament predictions regarding the humanity of the Messiah
Gen.3:15, Is.7:14, Is.53:1-2
5. New Testament statements regarding the humanity of Jesus Christ
Jn.1:14, Rom.9:5, Phil.2:8

B. Biblical expressions of Jesus' humanity
1. The Gospels
a. Lk.2:52; His growth
b. Jn.4:6, Mt.8:24; His fatigue
c. Mt.4:2; His hunger
d. Jn.19:28; His thirst
e. Mt.4:1-11; His testing
f. Jn.17, Mt.26:39,42,43; His praying
g. Mk.3:5; 11:15; Jn.2:17; His anger
h. Mt.23:37; His sorry
i. Jn.11:35; His sorrow
j. Mt.27:50; His death

2. The Epistles
a. Heb.2:9-10; His death
b. Heb.2:11; He called us brothers
c. Heb.2:17-18; He is our priest
d. Heb.4:15-16; He is personally aware of our weaknesses
e. Heb.5:8; He learned the restrictions of life
f. I Pet.2:21; He is our example

We then discussed the significance of the humanity of Jesus. Many jumped to the role of His humanity in Salvation; that's great and we'll cover that in great detail later. There is then the obvious reasons: He is our example in daily life, He demonstrates God is not so transcendent that God cannot be understood and His earthly experience means he can empathize with us.

We spent the remainder of the class discussing whether humans are inherently good. We can view Jesus as the prototypical human, recapturing the goodness lost when Adam sinned. Humanity was made in God's image and was originally "good". Can we be as human as Jesus?

Liar, Lunatic or Lord

Last week's discussion on the divinity of Jesus centered on the description of Jesus in the Bible. That of course assumes the validity of the Bible. In fact, some statements of faiths (e.g. TCBC's Statement of Faith) begin with an assertion on the infalliability of the Bible. We will eventually come back to the trustworthiness of the Bible in our course, but what if you're a skeptic?

Apologetics has the same root word as "apology". From Webster's, "1 a: a formal justification : defense;: excuse". (Saying sorry is only the secondary meaning!) So an "apology" for our faith is a rational explanation and apologetics is the study of the defense of our faith.

The fictional Sherlock Holmes explained his deductive logic as, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." So C.S. Lewis applied this logic to Jesus and popularized it as "Liar, lunatic or Lord". Jesus is one one of these three possibilities:

• Jesus claimed to be the son of God
• Jesus was a wise moral teacher
• No wise moral teacher is a liar, who makes a claim that they do not believe to be true.
• Anyone who falsely believes they are the son of God is suffering from a delusion such as megalomania; aka they are a lunatic. No wise moral teacher suffers from a delusion

There are a number of counter arguments and they focus on other possibilities not listed. The Bible is wrong and Jesus didn't actually claim to be God. Hence the record of His enemies takes on great importance: they accused Jesus of blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. Jesus could've been fooled by others into genuinely believing He was God. If supernatural agents fooled Jesus, then we're into a whole other discussion of the role and nature of these agents. If human conspirators, then we are into conspiracy theories which will be discussed as part of the resurrection below. A lengthier writeup is available on the Campus Crusade website which includes another option "legend".

The most dramatic demonstration of Jesus' divinity was the resurrection. We looked at a fun video dramatization of a debate on possible explanations of the resurrection. Again, applying Sherlock Holmes' deductive logic, the possibilities are: the wrong tomb, Jesus never died, His body was stolen or there really was a resurrection. Josh McDowell, a famous Christian apologist, has a website with a longer writeup. The stolen body theory is in essence a conspiracy theory and the reasons for rejecting it apply to rejecting a conspiracy surrounding the claims of Jesus' divinity or a conspiracy to fool a human Jesus into thinking He was God.

We had small group discussions to practice these arguments and logic as they are the essence of the Christological argument for the existence of God and of far more practical importance than the previously discussed theoretical arguments.

Divinity of Jesus

I. Evidence From Jesus Himself

A. His behaviour:
1. He accepted and encouraged worship (c.f. Mt.4:10)
Mt.14:33; 16:16; 21:15-16; 28:9, 17; Mk.14:3-9;
Jn.5:23; 20:28

2. He granted forgiveness & salvation (c.f. Is. 43:25)
Mk.2:1-12; Lk.7:47-50; Jn.10:9; 14:6

3. He displayed omniscience
Mt.12:25; Mk.2:8

B. His claims:
1. Divine Prerogatives - only God can do these things:
a. Mt.7:21-23; Jn.5:22; 10:9; 14:6 (cf, Jonah 2:9): Salvation, Forgiveness, & Judgment
b. Jn.5:21; 11:25: Resurrection/Eternal life
c. Jn.15:26; 16:7: Sent the Holy Spirit

2. Divine Attributes
a. Mt.28:18: Omnipotence
b. Mt.28:20; Jn.1:44-49: Omnipresence
c. Jn. 8:58; Rev. 1:8: Eternity
d. Jn. 8:46: Perfection/Sinlessness

3. Deity
Mt.11:27; Mk 14:61-64;
Jn.5:16-18, 23; Jn. 8:58; 10:11, 15, 24-33; 12:45;
14:8-10; 15:23; 17:5


II. Evidence from Jesus' contemporaries

1. His enemies
Mk.2:1-12; 14:61-64; Jn.5:16-18; 8:58-59; 10:30-31

2. His friends
Mt.16:16; Jn.20:28

III. Evidence from the New Testament writers

A. Divine attributes ascribed to Him
1. Mt.12:25; Mk.2:8; Jn.21:17; Col.2:3: Omniscience
2. Col.1:17; Heb.1:7-8; 7:24-25; Rev.1:8; 4:8: Eternity
3. Heb. 13:8: Immutability

B. Divine works ascribed to Him
1. Jn.1:43; Eph.3:9; Col. 1:16 (c.f. Is. 42:5): Creation
2. Col.1:17; Heb.1:3: Preservation, providence, sustainer
3. 1 Cor. 15:22: Ressurection, eternal life

C. Divine worship ascribed to Him
1. Mt.14:33; 16:16; 21:15; 28:9, 17; Jn.20:28; Jude 24-25: Worshipped by people
2. Heb. 1:6: Worshipped by angels
3. Acts 7:59: Received prayers

D. Divine names and titles ascribed to Him
1. Mt.16:16; 26:61-64; Lk.22:67-71; Jn.1:34: Son of God
2. Is. 7:14; Mt.1:23: Immanuel
3. Mt.12:8; 22:43-45; Lk.6:46; Jn.20:28; I Pet.3:15: Lord
4. Is. 9:6; Jn.1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom.9:5; I Tim. 3:16;
Tit.2:13; Heb.1:3, 8; I Jn.5:20; Rev. 4:8: God

E. Deity ascribed to Him
Phil.2:6, 11; Col.1:15, 19; 2:9; I Tim. 3:16; Jude 25

Evolutionary theory of religion; Pascal's Wager

In the last class Simon clarified Augustine and Pascal's writings on the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts that we long to fill. His point was that God is bigger than that and we shouldn't limit God to our understanding. Do non-Christians experience the same longing and what is their view of that? In other words, how does an atheist scientist explain the world-wide phenomenon of people believing in God? From an evolutionary point of view, belief in God, must have a survival advantage. The New York Times recently had a long article describing this view.

This actually gives Christians a wonderful opportunity to interact. Within this non-Christian article, the author writes, "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?" In other words, if the evolutionary view of belief in God is correct, that's all the more reason why they need to explore their beliefs. It is as natural as love. We all indeed have a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts; that is the scientific conclusion. The article concludes, "What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe."

Page 35 & 70 of the text book is on "Science and Religion" and "Creation and Evolution".

We then looked at Pascal's Wager. Basically belief in God is a better strategy than non-belief because the rewards are infinite if we do so.

	God Exists	God does not exist
Believe	Heaven	n/a
Do not believe	Hell	n/a

In game theory terms, this is a “payoff matrix” and the “believe in God” strategy dominates the “do not believe” strategy. It is a valid application of modern game theory within it’s assumptions. So like the ontological arguments, debates are over the assumptions in this logical argument, not the logic itself.

Faith and Reason

After a week off due to the church anniverary, our icebreaker this week was whether you are a "thinking" person or a "feeling" person. When you give your opinion, is it "I think . . ." or "I feel . . .". There was an interesting story on this recently as well in the Herald Sun.

We've been discussing arguments for the existence of God. The core issue is whether there is a rational basis for our faith; our theme is that we have "faith seeking understanding". If there is no rational basis for God, then the discussion is meaningless. While most "feel" their faith, we can also "think" about our faith as well.

Simon facilitated today and gave the following handout.

HANDOUT

Proofs and assumptions

Objective proofs	Assumptions
Ontological	God is the greatest that the mind can think of What the mind can think of exists
Cosmological (First cause)	God is the first cause There is always a cause
Teleological (Design)	God is the designer The design was designed by the designer
Moral (Esthetic)	God is moral or origin of morality There is morality in this world
Subjective proofs
Personal experience	Subjective ecstasy experiences confirms God Subjective ecstasy experiences reflects reality
Tacit Knowledge	Knowing God is not necessarily an explainable experience but is not less real as other physical phenomena
God is inside	Redefine God as the ultimate concern We have ultimate concern
Revelation proof	Revelation is the only legitimate assumption God cannot be known by any other means

PBS series with Bill Moyers on faith and reason:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch.html

Interview with Colin Mcginn

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/rss/media/gordonandmcginn.mp3

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason102_print.html (transcript)

What is the difference between trying to prove a unicorn exist versus trying to prove God exists?

One has direct implication to us and one is not

What really was McGinn referring to when he talk about God dying out?

Why do you think Mr. McGinn did not feel there was a lack of longing for “god” or transcendent?

What is reason according to Mcginn? Is that contrary to faith?

Interview with Sir John Houghton

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/rss/media/rodriguezandhoughton.mp3

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason105_print.html (transcript)

Why is the global warming question not as big as the God questions?

Does the fact that God “make things make themselves” add anything to the watchmaker (design argument)?

What does Sir John Houghton define God? How is that different from how McGinn define it and what make Houghton differs from McGinn?

How does he illustrate the similarity between science and faith? And is that the same relationship applicable to reason and faith?

A few closing remarks:

1. Existence of God question simultaneously invokes several other questions:

Who God is?

What is this God as commonly know to be?

How may we know this God?

2. The following are even deeper questions:

What are the sources of our knowledge of God?

Why must we know this God?

NT Wright: “if you simply address the God-shaped blank that people think they've got, the God you end up with is the God shaped by the blank. The real God specializes in taking the blanks in people's lives and pulling and tugging and turning them into a new shape."

3. “… there is an error in the frequently repeated statement that we live in a pluralistic society. We are pluralist in respect of what we call belief but we are not pluralist in respect of what we call facts.” This leads to a very interesting dichotomy of knowing and believing.

4. Ultimately, the question of God is the question of how we know God and believe it or not ultimately it is a hermeneutic question.

Real-life and non-classic arguments for the existence of God

Simon Pan taught and had us listen to a real life discussion on whether God exists. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath debated this issue earlier this year in March. McGrath is the general editor of our textbook. Dawkins is the "most famous" atheist. (Start at index 24:25 of part 1 of the podcast at this website) We analyzed the discussion which focussed mostly on the moral argument. Discussions on beauty feed back to the teleological argument and the cosmological argument is implied when they discussed ultimate cause. A handout with discussion questions on the debate is posted as the first comment to this post

We then looked at "tacit knowledge": things that we implicitly know and no amount of study and analysis can help: riding a bike is a typical example. Many of us "intuitively" know God through our understanding of tacit knowledge. A detailed handout is posted as the second comment to this posting.

God is "in here" is a related avenue of thought that God is manifested within us. A detailed handout on this avenue of thought is posted as a third comment to this posting.

Tacit knowledge and "God is in here" lead to the Christological argument for the existence of God: very few people believe in God for purely rational reasons. So why bother studying theology or any of these rational arguments for the existence of God? Because we have "faith seeking understanding". Our faith is not blind and that there are reasonable justifications for our faith.

Arguments for the existence of God

We looked at some classic arguments for the existing of God. For those who missed the class, I have a 2 page handout from an introductory theology book summarizing the arguments.

Cosmological: Every effect has a cause and in the absence of another explanation the ultimate cause is God. The in the context of the Big Bang, this is quite the conversation starter as scientists have no good explanation of the Big Bang giving us an opportunity to discuss the existence of God.

Teleological: The wonderful complexity of creation is best explained by a creator, not random chance. Where there is a watch, the simplest explanation is that there is a watchmaker.

Ontological: By definition, God is the most perfect being imagined. Existence in reality is more perfect than non-existence. Therefore God must exist, otherwise our definition is contradicted. Philosophically, this is the most important argument. More formalized ontological proofs for the existence of God are flawless logically; the only disputes surround their assumptions and interpretations. In terms of our Christian tradition, Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) originated this proof, and he also coined the phrase "faith seeking understanding". Faith seeking understanding is an attitude we should learn in terms of our study of Christian beliefs: our faith grows as our understanding grows

Moral: If morality is more than simply a normative description of behaviour, the logical basis of morality is an ultimate moral agent, God.

Christological: Jesus said God exists; if you believe in Jesus, you believe in God This is an almost absurd argument for belief in God. However, it's certainly true from a Christian perspective. More practically, virtually all Christians come to a belief in God by first accepting Christ into their lives, however that may be. Virtually no one accepts the existence of God through the other arguments.

Can God make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

Classic answers to this "omnipotence paradox" include:

1) This is a nonsense question, equivalent to "Can God draw a square circle?"

2) God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God. This was Augustine's position: “For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.”

3) God transcends logic. While this may seem a cop-out, we have come to understand that logic has limits. For the mathematically inclined reader, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem asserts that in any formal logic system, there will be true statements that cannot be proven. While the application of this to God is clearly outside of scope of the theorem, to me the philosophical implications are clear: not everything that is true can be proven; there are limits to logic.

The omnipotence paradox can be applied to omniscience to get "Can God ask a question to which He does not know the answer?"

The omnipotence paradox is directly equivalent to the "parliamentary sovereignty paradox" in the legal realm. A parliament is "omnipotent" in the area of legislation. Can a parliament write a law that restricts its own omnipotence? This is not merely a hypothetical question. Canada's constitution was repatriated by an act of British parliament. Can the British parliament revoke that and supercede the Canadian constitution? A good case can be made for either answer; hence the paradox. To bring this back to the Bible, irrevocable laws play heavily in Daniel's and Esther's stories. So in the final analysis, God is the maker of heavy rocks and the rest is our issue.

Attributes of God

Question four of the Shorter Catechism of Westminster asks, "What is God?" We looked up the following verses in small groups:

[a]. Deut. 4:15-19; Luke 24:39; John 1:18; 4:24; Acts 17:29
[b]. IKings 8:27; Ps. 139:7-10; 145:3; 147:5; Jer. 23:24; Rom. 11:33-36
[c]. Deut. 33:27; Ps. 90:2; 102:12, 24-27; Rev. 1:4,8
[d]. Ps. 33:11; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:12; 6:17-18; 13:8; Jas. 1:17
[e]. Ex. 3:14; Ps. 115:2-3; I Tim. 1:17; 6:15-16
[f]. Ps. 104:24; Rom. 11:33-34; Heb. 4:13; I John 3:20
[g]. Gen. 17:1; Ps. 62:11; Jer. 32:17; Mat. 19:26; Rev. 1:8
[h]. Heb. 1:13; I Pet. 1:15-16; I John 3:3, 5; Rev. 15:4
[i]. Gen. 18:25; Ex. 34:6-7; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 96:13; Rom. 3:5, 26
[j]. Ps. 103:5; 107:8; Matt. 19:17; Rom. 2:4
[k]. Ex. 34:6; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 86:15; 117:2; Heb. 6:18

They helped build the answer, "God is a Spirit [a], infinite [b], eternal [c], and unchangeable [d] in his being [e], wisdom [f], power [g], holiness [h], justice [i], goodness [j], and truth [k]." (Of minor note [e] is obviously hard to derive from the verses; [k] is easiest in KJV.)

We looked at the definition and meaning of each. For example, "eternal" or "timeless" is beyond our experience and relates directly to "unchangeable". Does God change His mind? From our time-limited perspective, maybe; but from an eternal perspective, God's purposes are unchanging.

We quickly observed that the above list is incomplete. God can be examined in so many different ways. Like our opening icebreaker, a seemingly simple, familiar concept, water, has many attributes and many surprises. God is even more complex and surprising. Each attribute can be studied in depth for quite some time.

God's attributes may also be categorized in different ways to help us better appreciate them. "Incommunicable" attributes can only be possessed by God: omniscience, etc. "Communicable" attributes are ones that people, made in God's image, can and should possess. (Communicable attributes are also sometimes called "moral" attributes because human morality ultimately derives from God. But that means "incommunicable" attributes are "non-moral". While logically consistent and semantically correct, God having "non-moral" attributes is too confusing. FYI, just in case you come across these terms.)

The communicable attributes of God are important in that God provides the ultimate example of these attributes. Christian studies of wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, etc must ultimately look at God's demonstration of these attributes.

Another categorization are "immanent" attributes inherent to God independent of creation (e.g. infinity) versus "emanent" attributes which only appear in the context of creation (e.g. omnipresence, mercy). Again the importance of this distinction is understanding of creation attributes that are shared with God can only be properly understood in the context of God's attributes in those areas.

Textbook

The Zondervan Handbook of Christian Beliefs is our reference book for the class. The copies at church are suppose to stay in church. However, we will be taking a sign-up for people who want their own personal copies. Cost is expected to be about $12, which is a great deal given the listed cover price.

The book will be merely a reference, not mandatory reading. While well illustrated, 350 pages of sometimes tough materials is probably too much to cover in our course. My observation of the book is that it is written as a neutral, almost secular, handbook to Christian beliefs. It tries to cover as many denominations as possible, including Roman Catholic views. Thus it is not really a devotional book. However, it does a wonderful job of summarizing the broad scope of Christian beliefs and as such can greatly enhance the understanding of our beliefs and our convictions in them.

We looked at page 24 on the Apostle's Creed today.

Creeds and catechisms

We reviewed the Apostles Creed and recited it in unison in class. Students from other denominations, Methodist and Lutheran, shared that they sometimes do the same in their worship services. As Baptists we don't subscribe to a specific creed and thus miss the predictability of set liturgy in other traditions. We seldom even recite the Lord's prayer. Creeds are wonderful summaries of our faith. Without them, we Baptists must take responsibility to articulate what we believe in. Hence, Baptists tend to focus on teaching through Sunday School: without set creeds, we must teach our members what to believe in.

Baptists will often state the "Bible is our creed". We quickly looked at some verses (Deut 6:4, 1 King 18:39, Matt 16:16, Matt 28:19, Rom 10:9-10, John 1:49, John 6:68-69, John 20:28) which articulate the major beliefs of Christians: God, salvation, etc. While the Bible is our foundation, stating our beliefs in alternate ways is nevertheless quite helpful and useful.

While we don't have a set liturgy, we do have a set order of set order of service. Liturgy can be quite helpful in worship as it is the best of historical worship formats. Without liturgy, we are freer to express worship, but must then deal with the inevitable failings of individual worship leaders.

While the FAQ ("Frequently Asked Questions") is a modern term, the concept is ancient. Catechisms (Greek for "to teach by word of mouth") are church "FAQ"s to answer what we believe in a question and answer format. Some traditions continue to use catechisms; instead of Sunday School, there are catechism class that young and old alike can attend. (We looked at some samples.) Again the strength of formal catechisms is that it gives set answers to common questions. In the absence of official creeds and catechisms, your humble Sunday School teacher will beg and borrow materials for this class.

The Shorter Catechism of Westminster is the most famous catechism in English protestant churches. It begins with "What is the chief end of man?" and answers with "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." It is still used in some circles today.

Our group exercise was to come up with some "FAQ"s about Christianity. The emphasis is on "frequent" not "obscure" or even "hard"! While we can't promise to get to all the questions, Christian beliefs do have a rational foundation. Catechisms are wonderful not for their set answers but for the fact that we can ask questions. "Faith seeking understanding" was the position of Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Faith that "merely believes what it ought to believe" is "dead" whereas “faith seeking understanding” is "an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God" .

TCBC Statement of Faith

From Article III of the TCBC Constitution, p 13:

(1) We believe that the Bible in its entirety, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the inspired and infallible Word of God, and it is the only authority for Christian faith and life.

(2) that the one true and living God who is, who was, and who is to come, eternally exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; that God is the creator and sustainer of all creation

(3) that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary; that in Him perfect humanity and deity are found in one personality; that He is the mediator between God and man; that He was crucified on the cross for the sins of all mankind and His blood was shed to fulfill the requirements of God's Law; that He was bodily raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven; that in the last day, Christ will come again personally to the earth as He has promised, to judge the living and the dead; that there will be a bodily resurrection of the dead, with the believers inheriting eternal life, and the non-believers eternal condemnation;

(4) that the Holy Spirit is the Counselor, who inspires and transforms people, and who comforts, helps and teaches believers;

(5) that salvation depends solely on the dying of our Lord Jesus Christ for sinners. By the shedding of His blood, He once for all accomplished the foundation of eternal salvation; that those who confess Jesus Christ as their Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead, shall be saved;

(6) that since the first man Adam sinned, all people have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and need to repent of their sins and believe in Christ, or they will suffer the eternal punishment of hell; and

(7) that marriage is a holy union established by God between one man and one woman only. Accordingly, our polices and practices are guided by this belief.

Statements of faith & creeds

Welcome to a course on Christian beliefs. In this class we will explore issues of theology, studying various doctrines and beliefs we hold as Christians within the Baptist tradition. We started by brainstorming on some beliefs and how to categorize them: T/F, personal/shared, provable or not, etc.

Our group exercise was to write down a summary of what we believe as Christians: a personal statement of faith. Some groups did well, others struggled. One of the course objectives is for everyone to be able to formulate their own personal statement of faith and of course, explain what it means. (Defending it is probably beyond the scope of the course!)

We looked at the TCBC statement of faith (from our constitution) and compared it to the statement of faith from AFC, which is the sponsoring organization for CCFs which many of us attend or attended. Content issues aside, the TCBC statement of faith is longer. Why? Because we are a specific church whereas CCFs try to be as broad and general as possible, being as inclusive to as many Christians as possible.

Statements of faith change. Our church amended ours in 2005 to include a traditional definition of marriage. Why? Given recent societal debate on that subject, it seemed prudent to give a clear declaration. And so it is with personal statements of faith: it should be a living document reflecting our growing understanding of our beliefs. The object of our beliefs, God, the Bible, etc, doesn't change but we do as do our circumstances. Thus it is very appropriate that we amend a personal statement of faith from time to time.

We then looked at creeds. Creeds are just historical statements of faith. It comes from the Latin "credo", meaning "I believe" which is the starting words of most creeds. We looked at the Apostle's Creed, available in our hymn books. Of note is what it doesn't cover: the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, etc. Creeds don't replace the Bible, they are short summaries and thus can't possibly be a complete statement of everything that we believe.

Of note, Baptists are not a "creedal" people: we don't force people to sign creeds to be a member. Some Christian organizations may. Baptists instead encourages each believer to study the Bible for themselves. A personal statement of faith is thus very Baptist; other traditions may not be so eager to allow such independent thought. With this freedom comes great responsibility for all of us.