John 10:10

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abunddantly. (NKJV)

I was reading back through my blog comments, because (1) I was procrastinating, (2) I was bored, and (3) I noticed one entry had 12 comments. Somebody mentioned that the purpose of Jesus was John 10:10. Now, I can't remember who said it, but I think that this is a huge issue. Though we are called to lay our lives down for Christ, and to carry our cross, Jesus still tells us that in Him, we will have an abundant life. Only in Christ, so while we may lose our lives, we will only have a full life in Christ.

Just a quick mention of the cross. We often talk about the scandal of the cross, we often don't explain the significance of the scandal. Moreover, "cross" was considered a four-lettered word in the first century. "Cross" conjured up images so vile and foul, it was considered in bad taste to mention it. Just think how people, specifically evangelical Christians, causually mention bearing their cross, as if bearing the cross is something insignificant. The word "cross" was so offensive people didn't even use that word, this is why Paul's mentioning of the cross, is such a jolt to the first century Christians.

So, what is a full life, I'm not sure, but I would think that it implies that an abundant life is equivalent to our life now, just infinitely better. I do agree with the person who said that Jesus was about abundant life, this is important for us to remember. This is the tension in the gospel, but giving up our lives, we gain a more abundant life.

UPDATE 10/30:
I would say that an abundant life implies a physical bodily life but I'm not quite sure of that yet. I've been thinking about this since I wrote my post yesterday. If someone were to tell me that I was going to have a more abundant life, I would assume it would be in bodily form. Does anybody think that they'll have a more abundant life without their body, because their body restrains them in any way? Sure, we would rather not have a body that's fallen, but that is a different matter, then having no body at all. Or at least I think it is.

Liturgy & Sacraments

As I recently told a friend, I am baptist in my theology, it's just that most baptist churches don't preach baptist theology. Why not? Because of their overwhelming concern for the seekers. Sometimes we forget that worship is for the believers. Worship is not entertainment, and it isn't for non-believers, it's for those who desire to make an offering to God. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't contextualize worship, just that we shouldn't design worship to accomodate non-believers, or make non-believers feel comfortable in the presence of a Holy God. Nor, should believers feel comfortable in the presence of a Holy God.

Well, my two concerns about the episcopal church are the two sacraments, communion and baptism. Here's what the Episcopal Church's web page had to say:

Baptism is the sacrament whereby people become Christians, and thereby members of the Church. At Baptism, the new Christian (or in the case of a child, the parents or guardians) professes belief in Jesus, renounces evil before the Church, and then is immersed in (or sprinkled with) water three times—in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism represents our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and assures us of our salvation through belief in him.

All baptized Christians participate in the Eucharist (from the Greek, meaning “Thanksgiving”) or as it is also called “Holy Communion,” “the Lord’s Supper,” or “The Mass.” The Eucharist was instituted, according to the Bible, by Jesus himself on the night of his arrest, before he was crucified. During the Eucharist, bread and wine are blessed as symbols of Christ’s body and blood. The bread is broken and shared, and then the cup of wine is passed among the worshipers as a sign of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. The Eucharist is a continual remembrance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection until he comes again.

So let me know what you think. This looks to be in the evangelical reformed tradition. The only part I disagree with is allowing infant baptism. So I have to decide what's more important. Taking the worship of a Holy God seriously, or allowing infant baptism. I'm not sure...

Religious Experience

Recently I read an article by William Rowe, who I believe is from Australia and taught (and still does teach) at Purdue University, though he is an emeritus professor now. Rowe is a philosopher of religion, but a philosopher that we would call an atheologian, because he's an atheist and gives arguments to refute the Christian's arguments. Why is Rowe an atheist? Because, he wanted to believe, he wanted a religious experience, he prayed to God and begged and pleaded, and God never gave him an experience. So, Rowe came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Part of Rowe's reasoning involves the idea that if God exists, He will reveal Himself to us or manifest Himself to us. But is this true? Rowe also said that a famous Christian philosopher/theologian St. Anselm of Canterbury, never had a religious experience either.

[ok just remember, if you comment on my blog with questions, I'll answer them on my blog in the same comment thread that way it keeps things less confusing when we have a somewhat stimulating discussion]

Diana made a statement in her blog today, that Jesus is beautiful. This really made me think. If you ask me whether Jesus is beautiful, I would say yes, but why would I say yes? I'm really not sure, similar to Rowe and Anselm, I don't know if I've had a feeling of experiencing the beauty of Jesus. As I walked to class today, I thought about my religious experiences and except for feelings of condemnation before salvation, it's never been anything more than an assent to propositions for me. One time I went to a Buddhist temple and experienced a type of demonic presence. But I don't know what it's like or what it would be like to experience the beauty of Jesus. For myself, I really don't know what my religious experiences have amounted to. I think that most of my experiences have been of learning and teaching. So, I am confused about this. Is there something that I'm missing out on, or is God just allowing people to experience Him in different ways? I guess if I reflect upon this it may be the latter, though, I think that I would enjoy an emotional estatic religious experience that many Christians seem to have. I would love to go to a One Day event and get all hyped up - but what usually happens when I go to events like that is I get really bored, and analyze the lyrics of the worship songs to make sure that the songs I'm singing aren't heretical. In fact, many of the contemporary worship songs, I believe to be weak theologically, and many of the songs I don't sing, because it isn't an orthodox theology in the song. So this tends to ruin many contemporary worship experiences for me. Even when I go to Christian punk concerts I make sure that the lyrics are theologically correct before I sing them and even then while I am singing the lyrics I think about the significance of their meaning.

Well, before I get too cynical I should just sum up my main thought in this post. Similar to St. Anselm, I haven't really had any type of religious experiences. So if someone asks me if Jesus is beautiful I'll respond "yes" but I haven't felt or experienced Jesus' beauty, I just know that I'm forgiven due to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, hence to me, Jesus is beautiful.

FIRST 'A'

Alright, I'm extremely stoked today. I received an 'A' in my religious epistemology class. This is a big deal to me because: (1) at SWBTS they never graded difficult, they just gave grades, (2) my professor is the president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and (3) I doubt myself more than anyone else. This is awesome for me, and I'm really, really, really, excited.

Thanks to everyone for all the interesting discussion so far. One of the things that I've been kicking around in my head (if you can actually kick things around in your head) is if I ever get a job at a seminary (which is very possible) that I need to write a book on the philosophical theology of the mind/body problem. This would cover some of the things that have been discussed about the soul. I still appreciate any and all questions.

On a sad note, I did not make it to St. Anselm's church on Sunday, at the last minute I kinda got sick. It's still my goal to attend an orthodox church every Sunday, preferably a conservative orthodox church. So, I will email the two episcopal churches in the area to find out more about their doctrine. Why am I interested in Episcopal churches? They have Sunday afternoon services. My doctrine is still early church/baptist. The biggest problem I have with baptist churches is that they don't preach what they believe. It's kinda like Christians who claim that they believe in Christ, but don't live like it. Baptist churches always claim that they preach the Bible, and are biblically focused when in reality they are growth driven. I was a Southern Baptist youth minister for 3 years so I've seen how it works... sorry to be cynical.

Platonic or Cartesian: How do evangelical Christians understand the Soul?

This post is motivated by some recent questions. I think that I've ranted enough about the contemporary Christian misunderstanding of the afterlife. The ultimate goal for Christians is the future resurrection; we are all awaiting the return of Christ - the parousia (which is Christ's return) - when the resurrection of the dead will occur. Yet the focus of most Christians is going to heaven. But what part of us goes to heaven? In the Old Testament the word soul, is nephesh, which is one's body, appetites, desires, and etc. Soul, is not an immaterial object seperate from the body. According to the creation account in Genesis, animals have souls. So what makes our souls different? And, if our souls are the same as our body, or identical with our bodies, then what goes to be with Christ when we die? So, our bodies stay here but our souls leave our bodies and go to heaven, but this can't happen if our souls are identical with our bodies. Our eschatological hope is the resurrection of our bodies in a perfect state, as God originally intended before the fall; upon our bodily resurrection our bodies will be undamaged by sin.

There is a tension in all Christian theology, and most of the mistakes that are made are because of neglecting the tension. The best way to understand eschatology (last things, or the study of last things) is to have an already but not yet understanding. The power of God's Kingdom is already prevalent on earth, it began with the resurrection of Christ and the miracles that He performed - this is the already. The not yet part, is that part of us which is still affected by sin, our fallen nature - this is why we all die - we are all affected by the effects of sin.

Rene Descartes was a Catholic philosopher who held to a soul/body distinction, yet the soul was completely separate from the body. In many ways, I think this is the view that contemporary Christians hold to. Descartes took the view of the body that it was just a shell, and a person's essence was in their soul. But this is contrary to the OT teaching, a person's body is just as much a part of their essece as their soul or spirit is. Descartes view of the soul was motivated just as much by philosophy as it was by theology. I don't know where many evangelical Christians have learned about the soul, but for the most part, I think that they are pseudo-cartesians. This is also a Platonic view of the soul, but probably more influenced by Descartes than anyone else.

I think if one takes a biblical view of the soul, then the question of heaven is moved into a different territory. Instead of thinking of our body as a shell, we think of our body as who we are, then the part of us that is with Christ after death is not our full being, but only a part of it, and while we are with Christ, we are eagerly awaiting the resurrection.

Recent musings...

I am going to St. Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church today. There's two reasons for this: (1) Perhaps the thing that's caused me to leave Journey Church is that they're an openness church. Due to recent comments on matters of theology from blog friends, I've decided that one can't be openness and be orthodox, let alone evangelical. So, I've decided that it's time for me to start attending a church that falls under the orthodox Christian tradition. I don't even need to attend a conservative church, just an orthodox church. (2) St. Anselm starts at 5PM, which is another requirement for my church attendance these days; I sleep in too late. Though my theology is baptist, I can be sympathetic to other orthodox churches, just not to heretical churches.

There was something else that I wanted to comment on but I'll use a whole post to do this. Basically I'm going to see whether our current conception of the soul is biblical or philosophical.

Theology, might rub some of you the wrong way...

Ok, I heard N.T. Wright speak in Atlanta during tha annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting. You really should read this link, but realize that N.T. Wright is conservative and believes that Jesus will return and salvation is only through Christ, and Christ alone. So read this and let me know what you think.

Here's a link to my school's radio station, college radio rocks!!

Small Group & Euthyphro

Well, I almost left the small group early Wednesday night. A neighbor of the girl whose house we meet at showed up drunk, so we spent the first 30 to 45 minutes trying to argue with a drunk guy. This brought back memories from college when everybody gets drunk and talks about religion, nobody makes any sense, and nobody is worried about speaking coherently... So I kept asking myself, why am I wasting my time listening to the leader of the small group trying to reason with a drunk guy.

Another observation to make: why do we give up so much ground trying to placate non-believers? I really don't care the guy showed up drunk, I mean of all the sins, drunkenness is not one that I'm worried about, I'm more worried about divorce/adultery than I am drunkenness. But, the whole small group revolved around trying to understand this drunk guys conception of God. He kept saying, "God is a dead-beat dad," and alternated that with, "God is my best friend," and occasionally he'd tell us, "God and I don't get along." So, it sucked.

Here's my point of the post, maybe I'm arrogant, I don't know, but if I am just tell me so, and pray for me. But I feel like the leader of the group is just questioning everything because he left the Southern Baptist Convention, but journey church (where we go now) is a SBC church for seekers - IT'S THE SAME - the only difference I can detect is the preaching is more entertainment and the music is better, and the service more organized than your typical country baptist church. Regardless, the leader always seems to think that by questioning things he can show us where we are wrong. So, I believe that good is based upon God, here's a premise:

(1) God is good.

God is identical with good, and God is good. So, the leader asked me, "Is it good because God says it's good?" What do you think my response was, "God is good." Here's the leader's next question, "So, how do you define good?" My response: "God is the criterion for good." Here's the leader's follow up question: "So, is it good because God says it's good?" Ok, at this point in time he is trying to trap me in the Euthyphro dilemma, but he doesn't know enough about it to understand that I've already avoided it. Here's the Euthyphro dilemma as broadly construed:

(2) Good exists.
(3) God exists.
(4) Is it good because God tells us it's good?
(5) Or, does God tell us X is good because X is good?

Here's the difference between (4) and (5), on (4) good is arbitrary, if God tells us to rape, murder, or steal, then those actions are good because God commands us to do them. For, (5) good is an entity that exists apart from God, and in many ways, exists as God's equal. How do I escape (4) and (5), with (1):

(1) God is good.

Since God is good, every action that He commits is consitent with His nature, which is goodness. We know right actions from wrong actions from observing God's behavior. This also prevents the question of why can't God sin, because sin is inconsistent with His nature and sin is a lack of good, whereas sin is a lack of strength, and good is a strength as broadly construed.

Nevertheless, I was frustrated with the leader's line of question because he was trying to trick me, but I was so far ahead of him and he didn't even realize it. Furthermore I even explained to the leader a further thing about (1) which I'll call:

(1') God is necessarily good.

This means that in all possible worlds that could have occurred or existed, God is good. So, there is no way that the Euthyphro dilemma applies to (1'). Now, there are some difficulties for this position, namely that of whether God has a nature, but I'll save that for a different post

Hope that I'm not arrogant, but if I am, I'll work on it and pray for humility.

African Wars

Well, I orignially couldn't get a hold of my brother on the phone this summer because he was dead, but the reason I called him was to see if he would help me move to Norman. Obviously he didn't help me move to norman so I was planning on moving everything by myself and having my lil' sister help me with the heavy stuff. When I was moving on a hot day in the Southwestern part of the United States a guy from Nigeria began helping me move, his name is Wale. So, Wale is the first friend I made. While I was moving Wale called up his friend Tim to help also, so it didn't take that long to move.

This weekend Wale invited me over for dinner and we had some good discussions. He received a MBA, and an MS in accounting and international business. So Wale's a smart guy. He started talking about wars in Africa and the reasons why people don't have any food. One of the things he told me is that in many places diamonds are the currency for weapons. If you want a gun, you can't buy it unless you have diamonds to pay for the gun. Why are diamonds so valuable, because the western culture wants them so badly. DeBeers owns 90% of the diamonnds in the WORLD, that's right 90%. So the price of diamonds are artificially inflated. Emeralds are technically more valuable than diamonds, but diamonds sell for the same price as rubies because DeBeers controls so much of the market and can increase the price of diamonds by lowering the supply. So somehow, DeBeers has convinced Westerners that diamonds are the only appropriate stone for an engagement ring.

According to Wale this is one of the most unethical things that consumers can do. Every diamond purchased encourages the wars in Africa. So now I have come to the conclusion that when I decide to propose, (I have inherited some diamonds) the main stone on the engagement ring will be a ruby or emerald. My question is, if it's a $5,000 to $7,000 ring, what difference does it make if it's a diamond or emerald?

Some Changes

Well, I decided it was time to change the settings for the backgound of my blog, thoughtful musings... & random statements. This has a more dignified look.

Not much going on here, have two papers due on Monday, a mid-term and a paper due on Wednesday. In the mean time I will try to post some on mental content and the Irrationality of Atheism, better explaining the significance of mental content for atheists.

Small Group & Reading Theology

I went to my first meeting on Wednesday night for my Journey Church small group. Everybody there, except for me, was from a small town, hence there was much antipathy towards 'conservative' Christians. Two of the people there, had much animosity towards Southern Baptists, but in general, there was much disdain and looking down upon the foolishness of 'conservative' Christians. I think they meant 'conservative' as Christians who don't want to change and want to continue doing the same thing, because that's what they've always done. On the other hand, change for change's sake isnt' any good either. There is a balance between maintaining the traditional orthodox Christian faith, and contextualizing it for today's culture and setting. I think that most of these folks though are so anti-souther baptist/conservative Christian that they almost lose sight of some of the important essential features in American Christian life the past 100 years.

This brings me to my main point, our small group will consist of reading a theology book together, then during our meeting time we will discuss what we have read. The leader was interested in openness theology, becaus The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has rejected openness theology as a viable position for orthodox Christians to believe. I agree with the Southern Baptists on this matter, whole heartedly. So what is openness theology (or open theism), it's the idea that God doesn't know the future, i.e. the future is 'open' to God. An openness advocate would claim that God knows everything that's possible to know, but it's not possible for Him to know any propositions about the future. This is absolutely ridiculous, but I'll get to that below. One of the main proponents of open theism is Greg Boyd, who is a pastor, and he uses open theism as a theodicy (theodicies are reasons that God would allow evil). So if we were to ask Greg Boyd why the holocaust occurred, he would respond with God didn't know it would occur. Yet, this seems silly, because surely God knows everyone's heart, and He would know Hitler's heart, hence He would know what Hitler will do if given the opportunity. God is often described as the "Great Chess Player" countering Satan's moves on a chess board, God knows all the possibilities and probabilities, but just doesn't know what will happen. So when Satan makes a move, God responds with the best possible move that He can make given all that He knows. So, openness theology reduces God to a reactive God, instead of a proactive God. All in all, I think it's an utter disaster for orthodox theology.

So why is it ridiculous that God not know any future propositions? Because I know some future propositions. I've been writing this post for 14 minutes, and right now it's 2:11PM, after I finish writing this post I'll go get a drink of water. That's a future proposition. Or what about somebody who's a parent of a newborn, she knows that at a certain time everyday her child will have to eat. Obviously God's knowledge of future propositions would be more complex than this, but, nevertheless, the idea of not having any knowledge about the future is silly.

Straight from the Holy Spirit

When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people. It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you." (1 Cor. 5: 9-13 NLT)

I'd forgotten how high of a standard people ought to be held to within the church. We ARE definitely supposed to be different from the world. Somebody forgot to tell the church in America about this verse. I'm not even sure how people would preach on this in the States. I ran across this tonight (technically this morning) during my quiet time. Really made me take notice about the standards that God has for holiness. It seems that we are literally to shun those who claim to be Christians and commit these sins. "Don't even eat with such people." That's extremely harsh! Wow! Maybe we forget how holy God is, and how greatly God desires for His people to be holy. I don't know. But this is a high standard to maintain, and there isn't much room for error. I take this to mean that if one truly is a Christian, then one will act in a certain manner. The Holy Spirit's role in our lives is too powerful for us not to act in the proper manner. Loss of fellowship is the most harsh punishment that a believer can receive. Obviously the church in Corinth had problems, but is the church in the U.S. much different?

Pretty Embarassed...

Before I went to be this morning, I just wanted to write down my feelings - I'M PRETTY FREAKIN' EMBARASSED!! I just sent off a rough draft of a paper that I'm writing for my metaphysics class to my professor. I've been struggling in this class this semester to understand what I'm doing, and he said that if I emailed him a copy of my rough draft he'd make a few comments. Maybe I'm just really tired and down, but right now, I think maybe I'll be working in Starbucks or move to CO or Vancouver and a be a bouncer at this time next semester.

Counter Culture

As I sat through church this Sunday a couple of thoughts came to mind. First, Christianity is supposed to transform culture, but in America, we have a weird sort of pseudo-Christianity. Instead of Christians transforming culture, culture has transformed the church. Now, a couple of things to keep in mind, we try to open our arms wide and accept everyone, but in doing this sometimes we lose our mandate for worshiping God in truth. The early church had Christians go through a year of study over church theology and doctrine before new Christians could become baptized and join the church. Most churches now practically beg people to join, then we wonder why the people in church are so hateful. It's often said in the U.S. that the founding fathers of our country were Christians (and "Christians" in this sense is usually meant of the evangelical sort) but the fact of the matter is that many of the founding fathers were deists - deists don't believe in a personal God - and the declaration of independence is a document based upon John Locke's philosophy. John Locke may have claimed to be a Christian, but he certainly wasn't an orthodox Christian. So we allow our supposedly Christian country to lull us into a sense of security.

Secondly, we make it so comfortable for people who come into church, we never show them what is different about Christians than the world. In fact, we make it so you don't have to change to come to church. Church now often is like going to the mall - you see a bunch of people smile and talk to each other, but genuine fellowship or friendship never seems to take place. (Small groups are meant to remedy this problem and do seem to help.) But if we are supposed to be transformed by the Holy Spirit, why don't we act like we are transformed? Is it because we aren't? I think one of the worst things for the church in America is that it's too easy to go to church... too many people go to church because it's a form of being conservative or a tool they use to get their children to act in a "moral" manner. Yet, the persecuted churches often thrive and flourish against all odds, I don't know why this is but a persecuted church usually seems to produce a robust and healthly Christianity - perhaps this is how Christians are meant to live. In a lot of ways, I think it would be good if same sex marriage was legalized, then people would begin to realize that we live in a secular country.

We need to take advantage of Christianity, I think we try to make it normal and we often drown out the radical nature of Christianity. Christians aren't supposed to be normal, we realize that at any moment we could be called by God to give our lives to Him. We live in a constant state of battle realizing that the parousia (second coming of Christ) is near and that regardless of what happens to our bodies now, someday, we will be resurrected with a spritual body that isn't corrupted by sin. (Notice that a spiritual body isn't necessarily a immaterial body, it's almost certain that our spiritual bodies will be physical bodies.) People that join churches need to realize the radical call that God has given to us... our lives are no longer our own. We should ask someone who wants to join a church if they are willing to give up their life to God, if they aren't then they shouldn't be allowed to join the church.

Irrationality of atheism (or why atheism is stupid)

I'm working on a paper right now where I'm attempting to defend Alvin Plantinga's argument against evolutionary naturalism. Evolutionary naturalism is the idea that there is no supernatural being (no God) combined with evolutionary processes. Plantinga claims that if both of these are true, then it's very likely that we're not designed to know truth - evolution has created us to survive, not to learn truth. So, the consequences of his argument are, even if one is an atheist, one can't know if atheism is true, because according to an atheist, her reasoning abilities aren't designed to acheive true beliefs. Therefore, one who is an atheist holds this position based upon faith, and not reason.

I'm going to argue that there are two different types of evolutionary naturlism to defeat, one type is the cognitive eliminitivists, and the second type are the people who believe in mental content (mental content includes beliefs, desires, experiences, and etc.). Plantinga has soundly defeated the cognitive elimintivists; the cognitive eliminitivists agree to this (a cognitive eliminitivist believes that people don't have beliefs, desires, and etc. - I know, it sounds self-refuting) that if cognitive elminitivism is true, then the brain isn't designed for true beliefs, only to get the body where it needs to be.

Those who believe in mental content will be much more difficult to defeat, but I'm hoping that I'll figure out a way to refute the objections that they give towards Plantinga's argument against evolutionary naturalism. (I also need to remember Jerry Fodor's claim that evolution cannot be teleological and adaptative at the same time.)

(I wrote this so I could look back on some of my thesis statements and remember them later on. So, instead of starting my paper with some of my ideas, I posted my ideas on my blog. If anyone has any constructive suggestions please let me know.)