My Highest Compliment

The following is a prayer I gave at the memorial service for Olivia Miller, who died shortly before she was to be born.  Someone who heard it paid me a high compliment by say that I prayed like a puritan.   I would like to think that meant sticking close to the scriptures and godly men who have gone before.

Gracious Heavenly Father,
We come before you confident of these glorious truths reveled in your Word.
That you are good
That you are loving and gracious
That you do not treat us as our sins deserve
That a sparrow does not fall apart from you
That we are intricately woven by you in the secret place
That the Kingdom of God belongs to little children
That you work all things together for the good of those who love you.
We rejoice that you are a personal God, existing in eternal relationship and establishing relationship with us.
As it says in Psalm 142, we can pour our complaints before you and tell you our troubles. And we can trust in you at all times, pouring our hearts out before you for you are our refuge.
Father, our hope is an eternity long enough to make amends for all, made possible because Christ has been raised from the dead In this life daily we are confident all that takes place in our lives is for our good and your glory.

Lest you think any of this is original

"an eternity long enough to make amends for all" is taken from John Newton quoted in John Piper's The Roots of Endurance pg 57

 "for our good and your glory" is taken from John Paton's Autobiography quote in John Piper's Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ pg 78

The whole Swans are not Silent series is excellent and free online.

Argument against Pacifism pt.1

When I worked at agricultural training school in Florida we had many young people from Mennonite Central Committee(MCC) come through so we talked about pacifism several times.  One of the staff, who had served as a missionary to Mozambique claimed that MCC’s in country training included teaching people how to work a pump action shotgun.  The racking of the slide, or firing of a blank or rubber bullet was very useful in scaring off assailants.  At first I thought that was a sensible real-world adaption of their pacifist belief.  But then I realized that it only worked to frighten people because there were others who loaded their shotguns with lead and were willing to kill.  It wouldn’t work without those people.  That is how I feel about pacifism in general.  Where do you find pacifists?  Generally, in countries with strong rule of law enforced by violence or the threat of violence.  I have a hard time classifying “true” Christianity as a cultural parasite.

The New Testament gives a very positive pictures of soldiers and those who enforce the rule of law.  John tells them to do their duty and be content with their pay(Luke 3:14), a centurion had greater faith than all of Israel(Luke 7:9), a thief affirmed the justice of capital punishment and Christ, by his silence, gave his assent(Luke 23:40-43), a centurion was an upright, and God-fearing man (Acts 10:22).  Christ said to turn the other cheek but that if he strikes you on your right cheek (Matt 5:39) and the “right” is significant or it wouldn’t be there.  He also tells a parable assuming everyone understands the protection of property (Luke 11:21).

What I find really odd if we are not to be in a position where we might take another’s life is Paul’s repeated use of soldier metaphors.  If being a soldier were inherently wrong, why does Paul refer to “fellow soldiers” and encourages believer to be a “good soldier?”  Could he just as easily encouraged them to be a good rapist for Christ Jesus, getting the seed of the word past all resistance?  Sorry, that is really crass and I ashamed I thought of it but I think the point is valid.  In I Cor 9:7 Paul talks about soldiers, vine tenders, and shepherds.  Are two good and one bad, inherently? Is one good and two bad (because it it wrong to kill people or get drunk)?  Couldn't Paul find three inherently good examples and not muddle things?

Why talk about the armor of God?  It seems odd Paul would point out as example to imitate metaphorically, people who are in disobedience to Christ.  In the wisdom of God, he chose those metaphors because any people through out time who have a language to read God’s word in will, by necessity of the predatory nature of sinful man, be under the protection of the rule of law and will have soldiers/warriors to look to. 

They only point I contending for is that being in the position to enforce the rule of law is not inherently wrong. Terrible atrocities have been committed by soldiers. There are times when we are called to give our lives for Christ.  But persecution is different than crime.  See pt.2 for a biblical example.

Arminianism and Pacifism

Reflecting on a recent discussion, I wondered if there was a connection between free will and not wanting to take a life (pacifism). Carrying Arminian theology to a logical end, you would not want to kill anyone because you might be sending them to Hell before they heard the Gospel. A Calvinist could be confident that if he was the means of sending someone to Hell that person had no chance of salvation anyway because he had been passed over by God. Why should be careful to not take life for personal gain or carelessness? Because that is what is taught in the Bible. We need not add reasons. God commands are enough. We should fear God and not the consequences of our actions.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28 ESV)

The destruction of the soul is something which God claims for himself. We need to fear offending God by taking a life in a way he forbid and not fear condemning someone to hell. It continues to amaze me how theology affect our actions and outlook.

It literally doesn't fit.

Trying to educate myself I came across some sites on Covenantalism and Dispensationalism . This site is quick and does list the weaknesses of each viewpoint:

Eschatology 1: Covenantalism & Dispensationalism
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w7.htm

In their basic explanation they say

Dispensationalism is committed to a literal hermeneutic when interpreting biblical prophecy. They have aroused lots of interest in this area of biblical truth.

Which that is the standard argument, that Dispensationalism is more literal.

"That's right! Don't you believe the Bible?

So few of these things in theology are so simple. For one to claim the moral high ground kills the discussion. It is really a straw man. I do believe the Bible so I am trying to line up future prophesies in a way that make sense to me. Each man must study for himself and teach his family what he believes. Differing beliefs on these non-essential issues are part of the family idiosyncrasies that God created. In a worst case scenario, I may need to limit fellowship with an individual or family but that is within my realm of authority.

But anyway, back to literalism. Further down the page they quote Isaiah 65:17-25 to support a pre-millennial view. They make the following footnote:

"New heavens and new earth" here refer (according to the following context) to the millennial kingdom rather than the new universe of Rev. 21,22. In both Isaiah and Revelation the "new heavens and new earth" refer to a new era in God's dealing with humanity. It is not a specific term that relates to only a specific period of history.

So...the Gen 1:1 heavens and earth are literal, and the ones in Rev 21, 22 are but here they are not ....because they don't fit. The Heaven and Earth in Gen 1:1 were literal and refered to a new era. Using the context to justify saying something is not literal is exactly what this site claims "they" do. Reading the whole passage it does not fit the millennium at all. And since Peter tells us this world is going to be destroyed by fire, I hope there will be a literal heaven and earth somewhere since we'll need a place to park our new bodies.

You can judge a book from its title

David Dunlap in Limited Omniscience is a collection of contradictions after a slanted, irrelevant discourse on the history of some who call themselves Calvinists. Here is a sample:

“For no man can deny full responsibility for his actions, claiming that he was irresistibly led by God; for God never does violence to the free will which He has graciously given to man. God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom dwell side by side in such a way that the former does not force itself upon the later, but in some cases He does overrule for His highest eternal purpose.”

How is does God’s sovereignty “overrule” but not “force itself?”

He has a “preaching-to-the-choir” style which relies on emotionally loaded phrases to assure the faithful they are right. An alternate title might be What to tell a Calvinist about what he believes should you ever meet one.