Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This idea must be remembered whenever people approach pagans with the Gospel, but we must also be careful when approaching a brother with disputes and ideas in the Church. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, offers this thought about the disputes within the Church, “the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history.”(1) Since this paper addresses many doctrinal beliefs and theories that many are conflicted about, it is necessary to first address the dangers of a paper such as this one. Also, since pride may trip many while discussing topics such as these, this essay much be approached with humility and an open mind (and I sincerely hope that this essay was written entirely with just that).
C.S. Lewis wrote an article entitled “We Have No Right to Happiness;” the article dwells on just that matter, and the title sums up the main point of the article. One could go further to say, however, that we have no right to happiness because we do not know how to pursue happiness. Our finite minds will move toward finite things of this world, rather then moving toward the infinite joys of the infinite, and infinitely personal, God. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. addresses a similar concept in his book Engaging God’s World (3) and, in the first chapter of the book, on creation. Plantinga references Lewis in this chapter to make the point that the mortals of this earth desire not too much but too little. That God created man to experience Him, but we are content with pursuing money, sex, and fame (comparable by Lewis to mud in comparison to Heaven). Man has no right to happiness because man does not know what will make him happy.
Man does not know rightly what will make him happy, but a saved man does know what will bring him joy. Man does not necessarily have the right to joy, but man is called to joy: “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!” (Philippians 4:4) Joy could be defined, as Calvin College Professor Paulo F. Ribeiro would say, as Jesus and you with nothing in between, or perhaps more accurately defined as the promise of Jesus and you with nothing in between. The thought that we have no right to happiness may bring to thought the common idea in the Christian Reformed Church of total depravity. Plantinga addresses total depravity when talking about the fall, saying that man can do nothing without God. The concept of total depravity could be viewed in many different ways, but it does not stand alone. Without common grace, total depravity would not make the least bit of sense. The idea of common grace is that God gives his grace to everyone: the oxygen we breath, the food we eat, or even the things we enjoy are all gifts from God that he need not give us.
The issues that lie in the matters of common grace and total depravity are not by any means how we define them. In all seriousness, you do not need to have a concrete definition or belief around these two ideas to be saved; however, you do need the building blocks of them. That said, it would be arrogant to believe that one understands every intricate detail behind the ideas of common grace and total depravity. In 1 Corinthians 1:20, Paul goes on to say “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In order to discuss topics such as these, we must hold strong to the foundation of our beliefs, but we also must discuss to search for truth, not to prove ourselves right. C.S. Lewis in his article entitled “Bulverism” says this, “Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”(4) We must shape our idea of discussion around the facts that God makes foolish the wisdom of the wise, and that we must search for truth. We must approach these discussions with the humility to search for the truth, even if the truth might be contrary to what you believe.
All this said to approach, once again, the idea that we have no right to happiness, even if someone holds a contrasting view, bear with me as we search for the truth. Lewis, in this article, uses the example of a married man who divorces his wife for another woman. A colleague of Lewis told him, “after all, he has the right to be happy.” Lewis contradicts this by saying that if happiness is circumstantial (based on money, job, family...) then one would ultimately always long for happiness, or always long for “something more.” So a man may leave his wife in pursuit of happiness, but he will not be satisfied by that nor by the next thing. By the time he were to achieve all his goals in life, how many people would he have stepped on, how many people would he have denied the right to happiness? And even then, would he be happy?
My father divorced my mother when I was very young. He told her, “I’m just not happy.” So he left her, and my family, in pursuit of his happiness. He has been pursuing happiness now, with no regard to those around him, for over ten years, and I can attest to his misery. Lewis compares the “right to happiness” with being six feet tall. A man may think he has a right to be six feet tall, but he does not know how to attain it. A man may pursue every option possible to attempt to make himself six feet tall and not grow an inch. Happiness alludes people much like height alludes a short man.
The ideas expressed thus far regarding our right to happiness have been purely based on logic and offer a message to pagans and Christians alike, but Christians have a much higher calling of happiness that many call joy. Christians are called to be Christlike, to follow the example of the Messiah - indeed Christians have no rights. Christ, being entirely man and entirely God, chose to demean himself to the status of a man; he forfeited his godly rights and became flesh. Accordingly, Christians have no rights. Not only do Christians lack the right to happiness, but the right to daily bread, the right to the air we breath. Ultimately, in accordance with the idea of total depravity and common grace, not even the pagans have a right to anything, but Christians ought to know that they lack the right to anything.
With the thought that humans have no right to anything, one could think that God ultimately is not good, but that is far from true. Many pagans view God as a powerful dictator with his list of rules simply waiting for someone to mess up; this also is a folly view. Plantinga addresses this thought when addressing the ten commandments. The ten commandments are not a set of rules intended to limit man, but rather a set of instructions on how to achieve shalom. Imagine, as Plantinga suggests, what the world would be for a day if everyone followed the ten commandments. God has always provided for his people: during the plague in Europe there existed one community that was not affected. This community was a Jewish community, following Mosaic law: washing their hands before eating, and burying their waste. God gave his people these laws to protect them, not to limit them. God removed our “right” to happiness (and everything else) to protect us.
“God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.”(5) Lewis said this in his sermon “The Weight of Glory,” addressing the thought of whether God created goodness or if goodness was simply around already. The conclusion Lewis came to is that neither could be entirely true, but the truth must have a little of both. As Christians, we are not called to fully understand perfectly the idea of goodness and God, but we are called to acknowledge that God is good, that God is love; as Christians, we are not called to fully understand perfectly common grace, total depravity, or the fact that we have no right to happiness; we are not called to understand perfectly the reason why God created us; we are not called to understand perfectly God. But we are called to acknowledge that God exists; we are called to live for God. Because we are not intended to understand these concepts, we must not go out of our way to achieve understanding of them. Because we were not intended to know what makes us happy, we cannot pursue our own happiness.
Works used:
1: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
2: C.S. Lewis, “We Have No Right to Happiness”
3: Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Engaging God’s World.
4: C.S. Lewis, “Bulverism” From God in the Dock
5. C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Man or Rabbit?
This essay caught me a little off guard, as Lewis has a tendency of doing. The question Lewis addresses is "Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" This is a question I have thought to myself a few times before. I think, how can anyone lead a good life without Christ? How can anyone even attempt to have joy? Lewis knocks this question out of the park.
Lewis first comments that the person asking this question is not searching for the truth of the universe. The person asking this question is simply wondering whether or not a "good" life can be lead without Christianity, they really do not care to know whether or not Christianity is true. Christianity, if true, to them would be a burden that they would have to either carry, or run away from. But, ironically enough, by simply asking this question they are not being "good."
Let me explain. There are many different dimensions in which a person could be "good." Many different ways. As believers, we know that God is good, and that everything good is from God. Lewis put it very well in his essay, The Poison of Subjectivism by saying, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." What I want to hit on with this thought is that ignoring, or not pursuing, the truth is in and of itself not good. So by asking this question, someone is asking if they can be "good" while forfeiting the truth, which I would respond to that (and I believe Lewis would as well) by saying: no.
Lewis goes a little deeper in this thought by addressing the concept of honest ignorance and dishonest ignorance. Asking about Christianity ultimately would mean that you know about Christianity, or at least that it exists. And if you know about it, and do not attempt to seek the truth, you cannot plead honest ignorance. People who truly have honest ignorance towards Christianity would not be able to ask this question because they would not know about Christianity. And, perhaps, (as Lewis suggests) these men could lead a good life, and perhaps, on the final day of judgment they could know God.
In Christ,
Ben
Lewis first comments that the person asking this question is not searching for the truth of the universe. The person asking this question is simply wondering whether or not a "good" life can be lead without Christianity, they really do not care to know whether or not Christianity is true. Christianity, if true, to them would be a burden that they would have to either carry, or run away from. But, ironically enough, by simply asking this question they are not being "good."
Let me explain. There are many different dimensions in which a person could be "good." Many different ways. As believers, we know that God is good, and that everything good is from God. Lewis put it very well in his essay, The Poison of Subjectivism by saying, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." What I want to hit on with this thought is that ignoring, or not pursuing, the truth is in and of itself not good. So by asking this question, someone is asking if they can be "good" while forfeiting the truth, which I would respond to that (and I believe Lewis would as well) by saying: no.
Lewis goes a little deeper in this thought by addressing the concept of honest ignorance and dishonest ignorance. Asking about Christianity ultimately would mean that you know about Christianity, or at least that it exists. And if you know about it, and do not attempt to seek the truth, you cannot plead honest ignorance. People who truly have honest ignorance towards Christianity would not be able to ask this question because they would not know about Christianity. And, perhaps, (as Lewis suggests) these men could lead a good life, and perhaps, on the final day of judgment they could know God.
In Christ,
Ben
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Plantinga Ch. 5
This chapter caused to raise my brow from time to time. There were concepts, not necessarily ones that he was stressing, or even points he was making. But there were concepts that came across in this chapter that I did not quite agree with. So here is my list of disagreements:
1. When Plantinga talks of a prime citizen of the Kingdom, he says that "A prime citizen has been redeemed far down in her spirit." This strikes an odd chord in me, but perhaps I have an incorrect idea of redemption. In my mind, there are two phases of redemption that we can acquire as long as we are left on this fallen earth. We can either be redeemed or not. We can either ask forgiveness for our sins (and save our souls) or we can neglect to ask forgiveness (and condemn our souls). With that in mind, does someone really get "redeemed far down in her spirit" while someone else only gets redeemed to a small extent?
2. Plantinga first talks about the Kingdom as everything around us, all of creation is God's Kingdom. But when when he talks of involvement in the Kingdom, it seems to me that he refers to it as something that is to come. I have been lead to believe that the Kingdom is something that we participate in now. That we further the Kingdom here and now, that he Holy Spirit works through us while we are still on earth.
3. Plantinga suggests that to become a prime citizen of the Kingdom, the first step is to get involved in the local church. I would very much agree. The only thing that struck me in this section was that he seemed to reinforce the idea of the church as a building. Or maybe just the concept of the church local church being the church, when the church really is all believers everywhere, the body and bride of Christ. I think that we have associated "the church" with "a section of the church." I think that we no longer have a distinction between these two concepts. And perhaps that is why the church does not operate as one body.
It likely seems like I am simply grasping for straws for disagreements sake, but I do not think I am. These topics are so incredibly important, and they must become gut reactions, they must become our stock reactions. I think that every time that "the church" is mentioned, it should be in a sense of the church body, a larger sense then it usually is used. That could help us immeasurably to instill in our brains a sense of unity in the body. Like anything, repetition is the way to convince the brain of something.
In Christ,
Ben
1. When Plantinga talks of a prime citizen of the Kingdom, he says that "A prime citizen has been redeemed far down in her spirit." This strikes an odd chord in me, but perhaps I have an incorrect idea of redemption. In my mind, there are two phases of redemption that we can acquire as long as we are left on this fallen earth. We can either be redeemed or not. We can either ask forgiveness for our sins (and save our souls) or we can neglect to ask forgiveness (and condemn our souls). With that in mind, does someone really get "redeemed far down in her spirit" while someone else only gets redeemed to a small extent?
2. Plantinga first talks about the Kingdom as everything around us, all of creation is God's Kingdom. But when when he talks of involvement in the Kingdom, it seems to me that he refers to it as something that is to come. I have been lead to believe that the Kingdom is something that we participate in now. That we further the Kingdom here and now, that he Holy Spirit works through us while we are still on earth.
3. Plantinga suggests that to become a prime citizen of the Kingdom, the first step is to get involved in the local church. I would very much agree. The only thing that struck me in this section was that he seemed to reinforce the idea of the church as a building. Or maybe just the concept of the church local church being the church, when the church really is all believers everywhere, the body and bride of Christ. I think that we have associated "the church" with "a section of the church." I think that we no longer have a distinction between these two concepts. And perhaps that is why the church does not operate as one body.
It likely seems like I am simply grasping for straws for disagreements sake, but I do not think I am. These topics are so incredibly important, and they must become gut reactions, they must become our stock reactions. I think that every time that "the church" is mentioned, it should be in a sense of the church body, a larger sense then it usually is used. That could help us immeasurably to instill in our brains a sense of unity in the body. Like anything, repetition is the way to convince the brain of something.
In Christ,
Ben
The Inner Ring
This article, at first glance, seemed almost trivial to me. Of course there are inner rings, it is incredibly necessary for anything to run properly. And, yes, people need to be excluded from these inner rings. This is one of many set backs to living in a fallen world, you must be able to protect yourself, your church, your government, or your military. If the world were not fallen... You could say that about anything. But we must acknowledge that the world is fallen, and we must make the appropriate adjustments.
I noticed quickly, however, that this article was not talking about the trivial aspect of the inner ring (even though if you take living for the Kingdom seriously, nothing is trivial). This article was speaking to the problems of the inner ring, and the one that seemed to be the root of every problem was motives. Motives of exclusion, and motives for being part of an inner ring.
Lewis says that if you desire to be in an inner ring, you are desiring something folly. To desire something that would put you in an inner ring is fine, but only if being in the inner ring is a consequence, not a goal. He also said that if you exclude for the sake of exclusion, that is also wrong.
The terrible side to this is that we all are parts of bad inner rings (or perhaps the inner ring itself is good, but we have bad motives behind the inner ring and exclusion). Often times we do not even notice this, but that is because nobody voices this problem, and as a result, we do not examine our inner rings. We have doctors examine our bodies to ensure our physical health, but we never examine our inner rings to ensure our spiritual health, which is far more important.
Jesus even had an inner circle, he had a very good inner circle. It was humility that earned this inner circle, in order to live with Jesus you lived homeless, you were persecuted, it was almost an inner circle that nobody wanted to be in (at times at least). How many were persecuted in the name of Jesus?
Another thing you can observe about Jesus' circle is that it was very open to sharing. Not particularly inviting people to join, but Jesus never turned people away who wanted to hear him, not even the children. His disciples wanted to be exclusive by sending away the children, but Jesus let them come. You can also observe, on the same topic, how Jesus had the necessary exclusivity in his circle.
Only by observing Jesus' circle, and striving in every way to be Christlike would we be able to attain an inner circle even close to being good. Jesus set the example, and let us now follow.
In Christ,
Ben
I noticed quickly, however, that this article was not talking about the trivial aspect of the inner ring (even though if you take living for the Kingdom seriously, nothing is trivial). This article was speaking to the problems of the inner ring, and the one that seemed to be the root of every problem was motives. Motives of exclusion, and motives for being part of an inner ring.
Lewis says that if you desire to be in an inner ring, you are desiring something folly. To desire something that would put you in an inner ring is fine, but only if being in the inner ring is a consequence, not a goal. He also said that if you exclude for the sake of exclusion, that is also wrong.
The terrible side to this is that we all are parts of bad inner rings (or perhaps the inner ring itself is good, but we have bad motives behind the inner ring and exclusion). Often times we do not even notice this, but that is because nobody voices this problem, and as a result, we do not examine our inner rings. We have doctors examine our bodies to ensure our physical health, but we never examine our inner rings to ensure our spiritual health, which is far more important.
Jesus even had an inner circle, he had a very good inner circle. It was humility that earned this inner circle, in order to live with Jesus you lived homeless, you were persecuted, it was almost an inner circle that nobody wanted to be in (at times at least). How many were persecuted in the name of Jesus?
Another thing you can observe about Jesus' circle is that it was very open to sharing. Not particularly inviting people to join, but Jesus never turned people away who wanted to hear him, not even the children. His disciples wanted to be exclusive by sending away the children, but Jesus let them come. You can also observe, on the same topic, how Jesus had the necessary exclusivity in his circle.
Only by observing Jesus' circle, and striving in every way to be Christlike would we be able to attain an inner circle even close to being good. Jesus set the example, and let us now follow.
In Christ,
Ben
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Mission
The Mission is the movie I went to see for class. It was actually quite a stunning film, not by any means in cinematography or acting, but none the less, stunning. It was about an Indian tribe that was originally a very violent tribe. Killing the settling colonies, but ultimately only for their own survival. Then some priests came to the tribe and interacted, they learned their language and traditions, and became part of the tribe. They built a church, and won many for Christ. The bonds formed there were incredible. But then the settling colonies decided that the Indians must move, they must leave their land. The Indians would not hear it, and they fought back (only to be slaughtered).
But the most extraordinary part of this whole ordeal was the involvement of the priests. Most of the priests fought with the Indians, but there was one who could not. He said that he must be peaceful. He stayed in the village as it was being attacked, and led somewhat of a church service. He began with the choir singing, and then marched them straight at the assailants. No mercy was shown, not love offered. Many were slaughtered who were doing nothing more then praying.
First I ask the question, what priest made the right judgment? The ones who fought, or the one who did not? Next I ask you, if you were in the position of the priests, what do you think you would do?
I intend to attempt to answer the questions I lay out, but not easily, and most likely not entirely. I believe that the priest who stayed did the right thing. The more that I look into the sticky topic of war from a Christian view point, the more I am conflicted. I am conflicted on the question of whether war is like Christ or not. Early Christians faced death on a Roman cross, yet they did not rebel and attack the Romans. They faced constant persecution, something I cannot imagine, yet they remained peaceful. Yes, in the Old Testament there are many stories of God inspired war, but what about the New Testament?
The only answer that I can come up with is this (and this is an answer in my heart): to protect ones self, you cannot murder. To protect ones self, you cannot steal. To protect ones self, war seems to me to be not like Christ.
So in that I believe I answer the second question for myself as well, I would like to think that I would choose peace. That I could praise God until the moment I died.
In Christ,
Ben
But the most extraordinary part of this whole ordeal was the involvement of the priests. Most of the priests fought with the Indians, but there was one who could not. He said that he must be peaceful. He stayed in the village as it was being attacked, and led somewhat of a church service. He began with the choir singing, and then marched them straight at the assailants. No mercy was shown, not love offered. Many were slaughtered who were doing nothing more then praying.
First I ask the question, what priest made the right judgment? The ones who fought, or the one who did not? Next I ask you, if you were in the position of the priests, what do you think you would do?
I intend to attempt to answer the questions I lay out, but not easily, and most likely not entirely. I believe that the priest who stayed did the right thing. The more that I look into the sticky topic of war from a Christian view point, the more I am conflicted. I am conflicted on the question of whether war is like Christ or not. Early Christians faced death on a Roman cross, yet they did not rebel and attack the Romans. They faced constant persecution, something I cannot imagine, yet they remained peaceful. Yes, in the Old Testament there are many stories of God inspired war, but what about the New Testament?
The only answer that I can come up with is this (and this is an answer in my heart): to protect ones self, you cannot murder. To protect ones self, you cannot steal. To protect ones self, war seems to me to be not like Christ.
So in that I believe I answer the second question for myself as well, I would like to think that I would choose peace. That I could praise God until the moment I died.
In Christ,
Ben
Eros
I want to begin by saying that this article was a bit difficult for me to understand. But I got out of it a lot, simply did not entirely understand all of it.
I very much enjoy Lewis' sides on this thought of Eros, of love like a woman and man experience for each other. Lewis says something that I want to talk about in this chapter: "We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that lie "wants a woman." Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus." He used an example when he did the recording for this chapter too. He said that a man does not want a cigarette for the cigarette, he wants the affects of the cigarette. How often, when someone finished a pack of cigarettes do they keep the box? They discard it, and this happens to women very often.
I do not think that this statement is referring only to sexual "pleasure" but rather anything, emotional, physical or spiritual (I think that covers about everything). Many men use women (I use these examples from the man's perspective simply because I am a man and can understand it, woman do it too, but for the purpose of this posting I will focus on the man's flaw) for many different reasons, and the worst part is that a lot of them do not even know. There are great, awesome Christian men who are very selfish in relationships, and they are blind to their selfishness. That is why, often times, when a girl brings up problems in the relationship, the man will be defensive and think that she is making things up, or over reacting.
But how can we, the ignorant man, be sure that we do not fall into this? First: communicate openly about everything. This initiative must be taken by the man, and once taken it frees the man and the woman to bring things us that bother them. Second: discuss and set boundaries for the physical, spiritual, and emotional aspect of your relationship (this will also help with the first thought). By setting up boundaries, and constantly keeping them up for discussion, you can be sure that you are both on the same page of the relationship. A lot of times, one person will get further involved in the relationship then the other, this can cause problems.
Again, this posting is geared towards men, and the things I mention are initiatives that must be taken by the man of the relationship.
This topic is of extreme importance to me, because I believe that men are not living up to their role in relationships, or in families. So many times I comfort my friends when they just got out of a relationship only to be offering them advice for their next relationship that fails from the same problems. And the bottom line, as hard as it is to admit, is these things happen because we are not being men like God shows us to be men in our relationships.
Also, just a few thoughts I had on this topic: first, like Adriana said today during class, be friends before you date. This is so incredibly important. Second, I believe that far too many relationships move far too fast. People do not set boundaries (if they do, they are poorly set). How many relationships become all about physical aspects, rather then what matters?
Randy Alcorn has a list of different standards that he holds every boy to if that boy intends to date his daughters. He and his wife sit down his daughter and the boy, and go over this list. One of the points I think we all need to remember, "focus on talking, not touching." We have plenty of time to experience each others bodies after marriage. Another point he makes is that if either man or woman in a relationship get sexually stimulated by anything you do, you have gone too far. That is God's warning to us, he built our bodies like that. If you do things that get you sexually excited, what other purpose should it have then to have sex? Take a step back, protect your integrity, protect your relationship.
If we are truly to become Christlike, we are to give up everything that we have as our precepts of a relationship, and observe what the bible tells us about relationships. Only then will you be able to be the man of a relationship as God has called you to be.
In Christ,
Ben
I very much enjoy Lewis' sides on this thought of Eros, of love like a woman and man experience for each other. Lewis says something that I want to talk about in this chapter: "We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that lie "wants a woman." Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus." He used an example when he did the recording for this chapter too. He said that a man does not want a cigarette for the cigarette, he wants the affects of the cigarette. How often, when someone finished a pack of cigarettes do they keep the box? They discard it, and this happens to women very often.
I do not think that this statement is referring only to sexual "pleasure" but rather anything, emotional, physical or spiritual (I think that covers about everything). Many men use women (I use these examples from the man's perspective simply because I am a man and can understand it, woman do it too, but for the purpose of this posting I will focus on the man's flaw) for many different reasons, and the worst part is that a lot of them do not even know. There are great, awesome Christian men who are very selfish in relationships, and they are blind to their selfishness. That is why, often times, when a girl brings up problems in the relationship, the man will be defensive and think that she is making things up, or over reacting.
But how can we, the ignorant man, be sure that we do not fall into this? First: communicate openly about everything. This initiative must be taken by the man, and once taken it frees the man and the woman to bring things us that bother them. Second: discuss and set boundaries for the physical, spiritual, and emotional aspect of your relationship (this will also help with the first thought). By setting up boundaries, and constantly keeping them up for discussion, you can be sure that you are both on the same page of the relationship. A lot of times, one person will get further involved in the relationship then the other, this can cause problems.
Again, this posting is geared towards men, and the things I mention are initiatives that must be taken by the man of the relationship.
This topic is of extreme importance to me, because I believe that men are not living up to their role in relationships, or in families. So many times I comfort my friends when they just got out of a relationship only to be offering them advice for their next relationship that fails from the same problems. And the bottom line, as hard as it is to admit, is these things happen because we are not being men like God shows us to be men in our relationships.
Also, just a few thoughts I had on this topic: first, like Adriana said today during class, be friends before you date. This is so incredibly important. Second, I believe that far too many relationships move far too fast. People do not set boundaries (if they do, they are poorly set). How many relationships become all about physical aspects, rather then what matters?
Randy Alcorn has a list of different standards that he holds every boy to if that boy intends to date his daughters. He and his wife sit down his daughter and the boy, and go over this list. One of the points I think we all need to remember, "focus on talking, not touching." We have plenty of time to experience each others bodies after marriage. Another point he makes is that if either man or woman in a relationship get sexually stimulated by anything you do, you have gone too far. That is God's warning to us, he built our bodies like that. If you do things that get you sexually excited, what other purpose should it have then to have sex? Take a step back, protect your integrity, protect your relationship.
If we are truly to become Christlike, we are to give up everything that we have as our precepts of a relationship, and observe what the bible tells us about relationships. Only then will you be able to be the man of a relationship as God has called you to be.
In Christ,
Ben
Monday, January 18, 2010
Plantinga Ch. 4
One of the concepts that was talked about in this chapter is being one with Christ in death so that you can be resurrected. I would like to expand on the concept of being one with Christ (or being Christlike) and also the concept of taking up your cross and dying every day (ultimately part of being Christlike).
To be Christlike is to conform in every manner to the ways of the Lord, but this can be a very interesting topic in the depth of society. There are very clear cut scenarios where one option would be Christlike and the other would not, but there are many areas where the decision is harder to make. One scenario I have in mind is this: you are a vegetarian, and you have new neighbors. Your neighbors invite you over for dinner (they are not Christians), and it turns out that this neighbor works for a steak distributor of the highest caliber. You show up to dinner and he has slaved all day to prepare the nicest stake you would ever have seen in your entire life without spending hundreds of dollars on one dinner. What do you do? Do you eat the steak? Do you politely decline?
This would be a very difficult scenario indeed, but let me tell you why you should, in fact, attempt to eat this steak.
You should eat the steak because we are called to be all things for all people (as long as they are morally right). If you wish to witness to the poor, become poor. If you wish to witness to a runner, become a runner...
The main reason why your vegetarian diet does not matter in the least is the comparison to the salvation of another. We are not told to be vegetarians in order to secure our salvation, so going back on that is not nearly as important as someone else's salvation. Also, as our professor said in class, if we are truly taking up our cross daily and dying with Christ, we are already dead. How can we be concerned about what we are eating if we are dead?
As C.S. Lewis said, die before death, or else it's too late (paraphrasing).
In Christ,
Ben
To be Christlike is to conform in every manner to the ways of the Lord, but this can be a very interesting topic in the depth of society. There are very clear cut scenarios where one option would be Christlike and the other would not, but there are many areas where the decision is harder to make. One scenario I have in mind is this: you are a vegetarian, and you have new neighbors. Your neighbors invite you over for dinner (they are not Christians), and it turns out that this neighbor works for a steak distributor of the highest caliber. You show up to dinner and he has slaved all day to prepare the nicest stake you would ever have seen in your entire life without spending hundreds of dollars on one dinner. What do you do? Do you eat the steak? Do you politely decline?
This would be a very difficult scenario indeed, but let me tell you why you should, in fact, attempt to eat this steak.
You should eat the steak because we are called to be all things for all people (as long as they are morally right). If you wish to witness to the poor, become poor. If you wish to witness to a runner, become a runner...
The main reason why your vegetarian diet does not matter in the least is the comparison to the salvation of another. We are not told to be vegetarians in order to secure our salvation, so going back on that is not nearly as important as someone else's salvation. Also, as our professor said in class, if we are truly taking up our cross daily and dying with Christ, we are already dead. How can we be concerned about what we are eating if we are dead?
As C.S. Lewis said, die before death, or else it's too late (paraphrasing).
In Christ,
Ben
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)