I wonder... #12

I wonder...
Do all relationships end solely because of the unrelenting selfishness of at least one of the persons involved in a given relationship? Can all disagreements/'problems' in a relationship be resolved if those involved are willing to be selfless and sacrificial in their love toward one another? Could you hypothetically marry anyone you start to date if you are just willing to be shaped into Christ's likeness in the context of that relationship? Yet, if the answer is 'yes,' does that mean that all breakups are akin to saying, "No, I do not want to learn to love you selflessly"? Would it ever be right to end a relationship? But if some relationships do not end as a result of unrelenting selfishness, what is the cause?

I wonder... #11

I wonder...
Why are we more liberal with what they take than with what they deny themselves? I find that gratification is more widely accepted than self-denial in the Christian community. We will more readily do things in our freedom than use our freedom as opportunities for learning to deny some of our desires. By desires, I am talking about simply "wanting"--I am not talking about needs (i.e. I need food or I will in fact suffer detriment). My point of inquiry is more "Why do we give ourselves what we want?" I am not necessarily proposing asceticism, I simply wonder why we make the choices that we do. Our reason seems to be: "we can, it isn't wrong and I like it. God gave it, it is good, and I can have all goods in my freedom if I want them." This leads me to ask, how much of my day is taken up with me wanting things? How much do my own desires and the freedom I indulge in make me more or less attentive to God?

Why does the man who abstains from a given good "need" God's permission? I am thinking about something that Francis Chan said at my freshman Torrey Conference. He said that when we hear of a missionary opportunity we will sit down and ask "God is it your will?" and often use that as a period for procrastination, during which we hope to get distracted. We will question service and self-denial, but we will not often question our common desires. In the words of Francis Chan (paraphrased), "We will more readily ask, God, is it your will that I go on the mission trip? and then go turn on the TV without asking whether or not it was God's will that we turn on the TV." I wonder about this...

I marvel at...

I marvel at God's love for His children and firm unrelenting commitment to their holiness. God is infinitely more committed to our being "holy and He is holy" than we can ever be.

I marvel at how many situations I have been put through in my life that I would not have otherwise chosen but which have proved to be valuable in the long run for producing God's holiness.

There are valuable riches in God, such that we have not yet even learned to desire, let alone to value as we ought. For this reason let us thank Him that He leads us through situations that produce deeper love and commitment to Him as holy--to be holy as He is holy.

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Hebrews 12:11

I wonder... #10

I wonder...
Does Protestant systematic theology, with its strict adherence to the reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, hinder us when we read scripture? Does this system of thought have the elasticity necessary in order to understand the various usages of the word "justification"? When you ask a protestant whether or not you are justified by faith or by work, he ought to respond that any view of salvation that divorces these two from one another is an inappropriate, ungodly dichotomy. Yet he ought also to remark that works are technically subordinate to faith, while faith is perfected by works. In forming a biblical view of salvation, we must take into consideration all of Scripture's witness to the "great salvation," taking into consideration both the Pauline and catholic corpus.

This is how I have come to understand the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification: it is a logical distinction, not a chronological distinction; both are united under the main/head category of "salvation" in Scripture, and though both terms are not used exclusively in Scripture to refer to these distinct facets of salvation (since Scripture is not a systematic text!) it is useful for us to designate these two elements by proper, particular terms (i.e. "justification" and "sanctification"). In a real sense, at the moment of justification, sanctification begins; and in that sense, according to a Protestant, righteousness begins to be "infused" into the believer. However, this is not to neglect the logical dependence of infusion on imputation, neither can the believer's quality be confused for imputation. For this reason, I wonder whether or not it would be helpful if Protestants used the terms "justification" and "sanctification" as the main/general category under which they can make the distinction between justification by faith alone (Paul) and justification by works (James).

In the end, as a Protestant I need to ask "Are we as Protestants so committed to our systematic theology that we fail to read Scripture well?" A question that I hope every god-fearing Catholic and Orthodox Christian asks himself as well.

Context: A common disagreement between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is over the matter of Christ's righteousness and how we share in it and are considered righteous before God. Protestants propose that it is firstly and perfectly imputed to men, where Roman Catholics state that Christ's righteousness is infused. If you remember Luther, this distinction is addressed in "Two Kinds of Righteousness" with his distinction between "alien" and "proper" righteousness.

I wonder... #9

I wonder...
Read 1 Peter 3:18-22. Where does Jesus go? To whom does He preach? And what does He preach? (A few points concerning the Greek, the word for "spirits" [pneumata] is never used for "human beings" in Scripture though it will be used to talk about a man's "spirit" within him and it is more frequently used to talk about "unclean spirits," the word for "went" in v. 19 does not specifically mean "going up" or "going down"--though it can be used for either seeing as it is used for Christ's ascension in v. 22, the word for "preached" is a neutral term and does not imply [in itself] "gospel" [it is kayrusso not euangelizo, it is "proclaimed" not "proclaimed good news"], en ho ["in which"] could be translated as a dative of time [i.e. "at which time"], and "in the Spirit" could be translated "by the Spirit"...basically I say all this to show you that there are at least a few interpretive options). 19-22 is often understood as a digression in Peter's thought. Is it? How might v. 19 and v. 22 apply to Peter's discussion about suffering (the context of this passage 2:18-25; 3:8-18]? Also, how might v. 22 help us understand v. 19?

May I simply say, 1 Peter is one of my favorite books ever...so is Hebrews...go read them!

So...

...1Enoch is intense......and weird. That is all I have to say...

I wonder... #8

I wonder...
Do I blunt Christ's teaching in Matthew 5:38-48 if I liberally prescribe violence as a viable course of action? Or if I support it as an option at all? Scripture, particularly 1 Peter, teaches Christians to trust in God's vindication through suffering. In the face of injustice, we are to look to God to establish justice at the "revelation of Jesus Christ." Does violence fail to leave room for God's vengeance? Is it a course of action that demonstrates a lack of faith in God's future vindication? Or is this instruction primarily concerned with being a "witness" (i.e. we should adopt this behavior if we are persecuted for being Christians)? Is violence ever a good witness? ...Perhaps violence is not a uniform, undifferentiated statement—In other words, violence does not always say the same thing in every context, but can make different points and serve as a different witness depending on the situation (i.e. What would Christianity's witness to the world be if Christians had refused/condemned getting involved in WWII?)...Either way, Scripture is at least telling us that we need to be absolutely concerned with loving others (especially our enemies!) and with being a witness to the world--both of which require us to follow the example of Christ.

I wonder... #7

I wonder...
Jude 1:3-4 "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." How do you contend for the faith in your church?