Would it be fair? Would it be right?

This post is old but interesting. It is from the Pyromaniacs blog, written by James Spurgeon:

"I posted the following once on my own blog, The Howling Coyote, and it generated some interesting discussion. Since we're on this theme of God and justice I thought I'd post it here where it will get read by more than just the ten or fifteen people who were reading my blog at the time.

Just thinking out loud here:

What if God were to create a race of beings, knowing they would fall, allow them to fall, and then do nothing to lift them back up? What if there were no mercy extended to them, no invitation, no restoration, no justification, no atonement, no redemption, no chance? What if God were to extend mercy to others, but not them? What if God were to make atonement and grant justification to others, but not them? What if God simply said, "One strike and you are out?" What if God said that to them, while on the other hand offering mercy to another group of fallen peoples, equally bad?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

What if God sent Jesus into the world to die for one group of fallen persons, but not for all fallen persons?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

What if God said to one group, "I will provide for you a Savior," but completely ignored the other group offering them nothing?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

Be careful how you answer, because that is exactly what God has done when it comes to the fallen angels.

There is a Savior offered to the world of men, none to the world of angels. There is mercy offered to the world of men, none to the world of angels. There is restoration offered to the world of men, none to the fallen angels. There is atonement made for sinful men, none for sinful angels. Man is given a chance, offered mercy in Christ, angels are not.

God never sent his Son to take on the nature of angels, and there is nothing about that act at Calvary that ever could save or ever was intended to save any fallen angel.

One strike, and they are out.

Angels do not understand redemption. They have never experienced it. The ones who never fell never needed it and they know it would not have been offered or accomplished on their behalf. They know that, because, for the ones who did fall it was never offered or accomplished on their behalf.


Hebrews 2:16-17 (KJV)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Matthew 25:41 (KJV)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

1 Peter 1:12 (KJV)
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

2 Peter 2:4 (KJV)
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 6 (KJV)
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The truth is, it would be just and it would be right for God to condemn all, for all deserve to be condemned. God gave justice to the angels. Punishment is what they deserved.

We got something else instead of punishment. We got grace.

All of this should remind us that no one actually deserves a chance. What we deserve is hell. God is not a debtor and God owes not one thing to any of us. If he gave us one strike and you're out, he would be doing right by his own standards of justice.

Every moment a sinner lives is mercy and grace and every breath he breathes is mercy and grace."

Da Vinci Dilemma Solved!!!

Thanks to a post that I recently came across, my afore mentioned dilemma concerning the Da Vinci code has been solved. Rhett Smith, college pastor of Bel-Air Presbyterian, was really the one that solved it for me - and I bet this wasn't even his intention when he made his comment. The afore mentioned dilemma went something like this:

- I believe that it is intellectually dishonest to speak against something unless one has studied the subject of debate.
- I have no desire to support Mr. Brown's story.

So what is the solution? It's so simple. How could I not see this before... the library! I won't buy the book or pay to see the movie. But I will still get to be properly informed.

Now the next step is to actually make the time to read it.

Funny, funny, funny... and a bit sad.

Last weekend I ran into a friend of mine in Santa Monica. He and I have had many great discussions in the past concerning the doctrines of grace - with me being a Calvinist and he being a "2 1/2 or 3 pointer." You know, it has really been a great test in my life to love my brothers when they are wrong... jk.

But all joking aside, he is a brilliant young student of Scripture and our conversations are always edifying and thoughtful.

This last weekend, he told me a story of a time when he, being from the south, visited an Independent Baptist church. As many of you know, Independent Baptists are often times KJV Onlyists. Well, this church was no exception. Apparently, my friend, Ryan, was sitting in a church service and the preacher began to tell a story about the new youth pastor that they had just recently fired. They fired him because he used a New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. And then he said the following:

If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me.

Read that once more if you have to. What the heck????? Apparently, according to my reliable source, he was dead serious!!! No smile, no chuckle, nothing. Now, to be fair, I am going to give this preacher the benefit of the doubt and assume that he heard this from somewere else. There is no way that any well-read student of Scripture could make this type of unsupported, foolish, down-right ignorant claim.

Ah well. I just wanted to share my new favorite man-I-wish-I-had-never-said-this-in-public line.

Emergent-us Says "No" to Statement of Faith

Recently, opponents of the Emerging Church movement have asked that a statement of faith be organized and presented for public perusal. But now, after LeRon Shults' refutation of the need for a statement of faith to be presented, it looks as though nothing will be formally drafted (below is a copy of Shults' argument). I have no thoughts as of yet - well I do but I'm still formulating details. But hopefully in the next few days I will be able to put some thoughts to print. Until then, I'd love to hear any thoughts on this subject (especially Mr. Shults' article):

The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a "statement of faith" to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.

Why is such a move unnecessary? Jesus did not have a "statement of faith." He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a "statement of faith" is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties – and this brings us to the next point.

Such a move would be inappropriate. Various communities throughout church history have often developed new creeds and confessions in order to express the Gospel in their cultural context, but the early modern use of linguistic formulations as "statements" that allegedly capture the truth about God with certainty for all cultures and contexts is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, such an approach presupposes a (Platonic or Cartesian) representationalist view of language, which has been undermined in late modernity by a variety of disciplines across the social and physical sciences (e.g., sociolinguistics and paleo-biology). Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins? Second, and more importantly from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

Why would it be disastrous? Emergent aims to facilitate a conversation among persons committed to living out faithfully the call to participate in the reconciling mission of the biblical God. Whether it appears in the by-laws of a congregation or in the catalog of an educational institution, a "statement of faith" tends to stop conversation. Such statements can also easily become tools for manipulating or excluding people from the community. Too often they create an environment in which real conversation is avoided out of fear that critical reflection on one or more of the sacred propositions will lead to excommunication from the community. Emergent seeks to provide a milieu in which others are welcomed to join in the pursuit of life "in" the One who is true (1 John 5:20). Giving into the pressure to petrify the conversation in a "statement" would make Emergent easier to control; its critics could dissect it and then place it in a theological museum alongside other dead conceptual specimens the curators find opprobrious. But living, moving things do not belong in museums. Whatever else Emergent may be, it is a movement committed to encouraging the lively pursuit of God and to inviting others into a delightfully terrifying conversation along the way.

This does not mean, as some critics will assume, that Emergent does not care about belief or that there is no role at all for propositions. Any good conversation includes propositions, but they should serve the process of inquiry rather than shut it down. Emergent is dynamic rather than static, which means that its ongoing intentionality is (and may it ever be) shaped less by an anxiety about finalizing state-ments than it is by an eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit’s disturbing and comforting presence, which is always reforming us by calling us into an ever-intensifying participation in the Son’s welcoming of others into the faithful embrace of God.

HT:The Reformed Baptist Thinker

"The Da Vinci Code" - Will you See/Read it?

So, the current dilemma that I am facing is whether or not I will see "The Da Vinci Code" when it hits theaters some time next month. I want to see it because I have not had the time - or passion - to read the book. And I am commonly faced with questions regarding the "historical facts" that are contained in the story.

But, my dilemma goes something like this:

- I believe that it is intellectually dishonest to speak against something unless one has studied the subject of debate.
- I have no desire to support Mr. Brown's story.

While I have read commentaries and reviews that present the issues, I have not read the book itself. Even still, while I am not 100% sure if I will see the movie or not, I do know that I - in no way - support the book or the movie - maybe I just answered my dilemma with that assertion.

I hope that I and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who have not seen or read "The Da Vinci Code" will be very careful about our refutations. Let us make sure that we are well informed (with the information to which we have been exposed) and wise with our words.

And for our brothers and sisters that have read the book or plan on seeing the movie, make sure that you are "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).