Theoblogian.org

Matthew on Bothering Jesus

Matthew — 11/19/2008 1:19:00 PM

I have a question for any who wish to respond. I have seen throughout this
particular blog (as well as others) this tendency to portray God as someone who
doesn't regard His human creation very highly. The Title of this blog, "Bothering
Jesus" is a testament to that fact. Most Christians that I have come across in my
life - deep down - have a fear of God. Not an awe inspiring respect (which is the
correct translation of the King James word for fear - as in "Fear God"). No, there
regard as offensive or off-putting, He's sending them to hell. How is that conducive to a
honest and free prayer life?

Jesus consistently refers to Creator God as Father. Paul takes it a step further and
says that God wishes us to have a closeness and intimacy with Him that we would
call him Abba - a very intimate term between a father and his child. For those of
you with children, can you imagine not answering your child's requests unless he
approached in you in a very formal, respectful manner? Do you honestly believe
that a loving bond would result with such barriers erected between the two of
you?

I agree that there needs to be a boldness in prayer. There needs to be a confidence
that comes from this relationship we have with Jesus. Unfortunately the image of
Creator God as a loving father is not taught in our churches. Just the opposite is
true. He is easily stirred to unbridled anger at the slightest provocation by His
creation and it is only through Christ that His hand is stayed. How can this
concept be taught in the church when Christ clearly explained that "...If you
have seen Me you have seen the Father for I and the Father are One."

My own prayer life has undergone much tumult as a result of my formative teaching in the
church that taught me about a vengeful, wrath filled God. I find myself scouring
blogs such as this one looking for someone else who is also wondering just what is
going on? What am I missing? How do you pray to a being that would just as soon kill you as look at you, but for your belief in Christ? Seems a bit draconian if you ask me.

Mark Adams on Arlen Chitwood and Soul Salvation

Mark Adams — 9/13/2008 4:02:00 PM

I know that Chitwood argues man is tripartite, based on his understanding of the Trinity, but does anyone else see a problem with this? God is Trinity: three persons, one God. The persons are equal and have conversation with each other. They are inseparable. While man is created in God's image, man's parts (and God cannot be said to have parts) do not converse. If they are equal and inseparable, how can one be saved eternally (the spirit) and another condemned (the soul)? Is the spirit of a man in his soul and his soul in his spirit? I question how far this analogy can be taken. That scripture never makes it should be instructive.

Second, while Chitwood argues that upon Jesus's death his spirit ascended to the Father (see Salvation of the Soul), no such thing is mentioned in scripture. In fact, John 20:17 says the very opposite: "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father..." One might reply, "Well, his body didn't, but his spirit did." I can only answer that such a view is necessary only to protect the doctrine of soul salvation, not to prove scriptural truth. Jesus never mentions his Spirit ascending to the Father prior to his, er, ascension. If it is as Chitwood explains, why is scripture so utterly silent on the point? Why so ambiguous?

I'm blogging about this at http://agabus.com/?cat=9

zach on Arlen Chitwood and Soul Salvation

zach — 9/10/2008 7:45:00 PM

Concerning the issue of weather we are trichotomous or dichotomous.

Gen 1:26 says man was made in Gods image ,

body, spirit, and soul one of the best pictures of this one can see is our Lord Jesus in his death.

His spirit went to the father His body went into the tomb and his soul went to the place of the dead.

"I know I am saved , But I can only hope, work,and pray that I reign with Him. "

jlepper on Arlen Chitwood and Soul Salvation

jlepper — 9/10/2008 9:48:00 AM

God said "let us make man in our image.." God is a triune being, so man must be also. Body, spirit, soul.

He formed Adam from a pile of dust (body), he blew the breath of life into him (spirit), and he THEN and only then did he become a living soul.

"The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharperthan any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, ..." Heb. 4:12

Dividing soul and spirit, or soul from spirit, and then further divided from joint and marrow (body).

If we consider the Epistle of Jude, in verse 3, Jude is addresssing Christians. In verse 3 Jude wrote, "When I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you , and exhort that ye should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints."

Considering this verse, what is the common salvation? What is the Faith once delvered unto the saints, and why must we contend for it?

The "common salvation" can only be spiritual salvation recieved upon belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and available unto all men.

The Faith once delivered unto the saints, is and can only be, salvation of the soul which is not given but must be contended for by Christians not the unsaved. (The rightous acts of the saints).

If I may so meekley paraphrase St. Jude... Jude started to write unto the saints (Chritians) about spiritual salvation, but he was stopped by the Holy Spirit and basically told, why are you writing to Christians about something which they already possess? Instead Jude, write unto them of the Faith once delivered unto the saints, soulical salvation.

Brian on ETS Presentation

Brian — 7/26/2008 9:31:00 AM

Congratulations, Charlie! I look forward to reading your paper.

Eric on On the Origins of War: Donald Kagan

Eric — 7/15/2008 9:56:00 AM

That makes a lot of sense, and I think you are dead on. One of the major issues with the Germany after WWI was that the country was decimated, crippled financially. Hitler gave his people pride and literally created a sense of extreme nationalism. We perpetuate the cycle when we continue to hold countries responsible, after the conflict is completed (ie expecting Germany to pay for the costs of the Allied countries after WWI). We also perpetuate the cycle when we impose sanctions as it breeds a similar type of discontent in the society. I am reminded of Revelation where the four horsemen are sent forward, one with specific instructions to destroy the wheat and barley (common man) but leave the wine (the rich).

One issue that looms over all though, is the fact that some societies simply believe in the use of force as a means to success and believe in the their personal supremacy over other people groups, religions, etc. How do you manage a diplomatic solution in these instances? The problem with the philosophy of 'peace' as it is put forth today is twofold. First it naturally assumes that people are basically good and have been wronged. Right the wrong and the problem goes away. Second, it defines 'peace' as the absence of war or violence, and I'm not sure that this is a good definition Biblically speaking.

Kyrie Eleison on Holy Matrimony?

Kyrie Eleison — 7/15/2008 8:49:00 AM

"Therefore, I conclude that if your spouse cheats on you, you are no longer bound by your marriage vows."

Regarding this statement, would you say the betrayed spouse has the status of a widow?

TimP on Walter Brueggemann the Eastern Orthodox

TimP — 7/14/2008 4:45:00 PM

Charlie,

i'd agree with you that there was much that is beautiful in what the Orthodox next door were doing, even if a bit uncomfortable for me....especially the incense! i think your analysis here is really very cool. That is a gracious and charitable way of looking at things. Neat.

TimP

Charlie on On the Origins of War: Donald Kagan

Charlie — 7/13/2008 7:39:00 PM

That is a good point, and in these two cases I do think that the military card should have been played earlier, especially in WW1 with the opportunity to prevent the Armenian massacres. I do think that violent force is required on occasion, especially when a third party is being brutalized. But I also think that much more could have been done in the two decades before each of the wars. While my knowledge of the Weimer Republic is minimal, it seems that the Allies could have done considerably more to rebuild Germany and strengthen a stable government there. I would see the major opportunity for peace not as coming in the 30's, as it was too late then, but in the 20's, beginning with the treaty that ended WW1. My knoweldge of the time period before WW1 is even less, so I really can't say anything there, but I still wonder what could have been in the 1890's and early 1900's to encourage peace. One of the major problems in my mind would be the empire building that was going on as the Ottoman empire was falling: each of the major powers wanted a share of it. While there is no doubt that colonization in Egypt, North Africa, and many other places introduced much good, it has done immeasurable harm as well. The book review I posted a few weeks ago contained the idea that we need to not so much take out the sharks as take out the environment that supports the sharks; i.e. help economies to prosper, people to be safe, etc. If this had been done in Germany in the 20's, one wonders how different the 30's would have looked. But ultimately, as I said earlier, sometimes force is simply required.

Eric on On the Origins of War: Donald Kagan

Eric — 7/8/2008 7:42:00 AM

An interesting perspective. How could peace have been fostered in either WWI or WWII? A lack of dialogue was not to blame for either situation. The Germains believed in their right to take what they wanted. England was the one country standing in the gap, but until the U.S. kind of rode into it, there wasn't much hope.