PostConservative Moderate Baptist

I'm Not a Heretic!

2006-03-20T11:47:00.000-06:00

I am apparently compliant with the council of Chalcedon. However, I'm also just as much a Pelagian. I wonder what that means?

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Pelagianism

83%

Chalcedon compliant

83%

Monophysitism

50%

Modalism

33%

Nestorianism

25%

Donatism

17%

Monarchianism

17%

Gnosticism

Apollanarian

Adoptionist

Arianism

Docetism

Albigensianism

Socinianism

Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com

2006-02-20T11:18:00.000-06:00

I realized today that there are very few sports which may actually be considered "outdoor" sports. Granted, there are sports played outdoors, such as tennis, golf or baseball, but these are not truly outdoor sports because they are not played in all weather conditions. To be a truly outdoor sport, it must be playable no matter the weather conditions. Take for example, American Football, soccer (which I don't really care for, but you gotta admit, those people play no matter what), and what may possibly be the toughest sport ever, rugby. These sports are played in any conditions, no matter the weather. Rain? So what, mud makes it fun. Snow? That's what warm clothes are for. Wind? That just makes it more fun to pass/kick/throw. About the only thing that will truly kill these three sports is a chance of electrocution (and then not always) due to a lightning storm.

I am not arguing that baseball, golf, etc. are not true sports, simply that they are not truly outdoor sports.

I'm not sure what this has to due with theology etc, but I haven't posted in a while, so there you go.

It's Been a While

2006-01-28T14:48:00.000-06:00

Well, much has happened in the two months since I last posted. I wouldn't be suprised if I've lost most of my loyal readers in my abscence, the numbers probably reach into the five's now (given a base 5 number system). I am now a (very) happily married man. I have completed an application to Baylor Universitiy's Department of Religion for a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology (please note that this is independent of Truett Seminary, and institution in which I would not choose to enroll). I am embarking upon my final semester of Seminary, a prospect that might excite me more if it meant the end of my formal education, but nonetheless is still a significant milestone. As a good friend, Justin Dunn, said, "They're not going to just hand us our diplomas in May, they still expect us to actually do work." I wish I had something more theological to post, but maybe this update will prime the pump for future postings.

I Can Live With This

2005-11-21T10:36:00.000-06:00

I don't always like equizzes, but this one was really cool.

You scored as William Wallace. The great Scottish warrior William Wallace led his people against their English oppressors in a campaign that won independence for Scotland and immortalized him in the hearts of his countrymen. With his warrior's heart, tactician's mind, and poet's soul, Wallace was a brilliant leader. He just wanted to live a simple life on his farm, but he gave it up to help his country in its time of need.

William Wallace

83%

Indiana Jones

79%

The Terminator

67%

Batman, the Dark Knight

63%

James Bond, Agent 007

54%

Maximus

54%

Neo, the "One"

54%

The Amazing Spider-Man

46%

Lara Croft

42%

El Zorro

33%

Captain Jack Sparrow

33%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

PS, My mother's maiden name is McOsker, so I'm at least half Irish/Scottish.

Countdown

2005-11-06T12:57:00.000-06:00

Four weeks and six days.

That's how long it is until my wedding. I'll soon begin counting down the weeks, days and hours. When we hit the one week mark, I'll begin counting down by days, hours and minutes, and even closer, I'll count by the second.

This will annoy many people.

I don't care.

The only other time in my life I counted down to something so precisely was when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out. Looking back, it was kind of silly to be so excited about a movie. In no way is being this excited about my wedding silly.

I love Norma, and can't wait to spend the rest of my life together with her. No doubt our marriage will change many things in my life. In fact, Norma bought shoes for me the other day without me being there. She called to check on my shoe size and preferred style, then bought me a pair of brown oxfords. This, more than anything else, brought home to me the fact that my life is changing drastically. And do you know what? I'm ok with that.

I then got to thinking about how much our life changes when we encounter God. For some, we were always in church, and just gave ourselves to God as a natural part of growing up. This is not unlike realizing you love an old friend. For others, the encounter with God was later in life, and produced a more drastic change. Some people also meet their significant other later in life.

Coming to God is like falling in love, everybody does it differently, but as long as you get to the place where love is, the way you get there is contingent.

Literal and True

2005-10-18T10:19:00.000-05:00

In my church we are working through the book of Revelation in a Sunday Night Bible study, which I am teaching. In the course of our lesson last Sunday, we discovered that the words "literal" and "true" are not synonyms. That is, something can be literal and untrue, and something can be true but not literal. For example, the phrase "This is a table" is literal. There is no figurative language, no metaphor, simile, hyperbole, etc. However, if you are pointing at a chair while making that statement, your phrase is untrue. If you are pointing at a table while making that statement, your statement is both literal and true.

On the other hand, something can be true but not literal. I referred to the tape recorder we used to record the lessons. I said, "This recorder is capturing my words." That statement was not literal. My words are not physical objects moving around on their own, and the tape recorder was not tracking them down and trapping them. What was literally happening was that my vocal chords were creating vibrations in the air. Those vibrations were sensed by electronic equipment in the microphone, interpreted and converted to an electronic signal. The signal was then recorded by aligning little magnetic thingys (here my technical knowledge breaks down) on a piece of tape. Later, we could play back the tape, and the magnetic alignment would be sent to the speaker, which would then convert the signal back into air vibrations, which our ears would detect as vibrations on little hairs in our aural canals, then they would convert the vibrations that our brains would interpret first as sound, then as words, then our brain would make sense of the words.

That is literal. Pretty bulky, huh?

On the other hand, the recorder was capturing my words, in that it could be used to carry the words around and let them out at the appropriate time. The statement was not literal, but it was true. On the other hand, if the recorder had not been turned on, the statement would be unliteral and untrue. Literal isn't always preferable to figurative, since figurative is often quicker, and because it is less bulky, can be more effective.

In terms of the Bible, things can be true but not literal. Take for example God's statement that God carried the people of Israel on Eagles' wings out of Egypt. The people walked out on their own two feet. The statement is not literal. But the statement is true, because it refers to the people being taken out of Egypt by a power not their own (God's intervention to convince Pharaoh to let them go and then protecting the Hebrew's in the desert.

So, literal and true are not synonyms, in fact, literal and true are independent variables, i.e. they are neither dependent on one another nor are they mutually exclusive.

Intelligent Design

2005-10-11T14:08:00.000-05:00

As the debate rages on about whether or not intelligent design should be taught in public schools, the question keeps presenting itself to me, "Who Cares!?" Why are so many focused on what public, non religious schools are teaching our children about religion when it is we, as Christians who ought to be teaching others about the good news of Christ. For many, I think, this is an issue of loyalty. Far too many see this issue as an either or situation. Either you support intelligent design and its being taught in schools, or you are a pagan. This is simply not the case. I believe God created the world yes, but I believe that the place to teach that doctrine is in the Christian home and in Sunday School. Let public schools talk about how the world was created, but frankly, I don't care what they say about who did the creating. Lets remember, we can always tell children to think for themselves.

I also hear a great number of comments about how ungodly our schools are becoming. To that I have several responses. 1. My mother is a public school teacher, and she sees her job as ministry. While she does not teach about religion, her religious beliefs permeate who she is, so that whenever she goes into her school, Christ walks in with her. Wherever those who love Christ are, so there is Christ amongst them. I was recently at a Conference with Dr. Ben Witherington III, where he said that many Evangelical Christians have pulled their kids out of public schools and begun to home school them or to put them into "Christian" schools. If our schools have slid to a more godless position, perhaps it is because Christians, by their absence, have allowed it to happen. It is the presence of Christians in the schools, being loving and kind as Jesus was, not teaching intelligent design, that will make our schools godly again. It is the learners, and not the curriculum, who determine that. Let's quit wasting our time confusing Sunday School and science class.

PostConservative prolegomena

2005-09-19T14:04:00.000-05:00

In my Readings in Theology class with Dr. Dan Stiver, we've been looking at various trends in contemporary theology. One of our four textbooks is Vanhoozer's Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, for which Dr. Stiver contributed a chapter on Theological Method. Dr. Stiver called for a determining of prolegomena, or explanation of theological method. In modernity, with the need for indubitable foundations, prolegomena was of supreme import, since you had to have a solid method for doing theology for any of your thoughts to be valid. This leads to people talking so much about theology they never actually get around to doing theology, according to Stiver. Prolegomena is still necessary, since it sets the context of the theologian for the readers, but it should no longer be considered the most important part of a systematic theology. Stiver cited Millard Erickson's three volume systematic theology in which ethics came in the first volume before the classic theological topics (vol. II).

We have to write a paper for the class in question, and the range of topics is pretty broad. Right now I am considering a paper with a title something like A PostConservative Prolegomena. Any ideas?

Open Theism Revisited

2005-08-27T10:38:00.000-05:00

A recent class experience has caused me to question my stance on Open Theism. As you may or may not be aware from my previous postings, one of the main attractions for open theism comes out of my inability to see how true, libertarian freedom can coexist with God's foreknowledge of the future. In other words, if God knows exactly what I am going to do for dinner, i.e., that I will choose chicken instead of steak, how can I be truly free to choose? I have to choose chicken; otherwise God does not truly know the future. In that line of reasoning, God's foreknowledge precludes the possibility of free choice.

Now for the promised question about open theism; is the idea that God's foreknowledge and human freedom are mutually exclusive too modern? In other words, that binary, all-or-nothing dualism is more characteristic of modernity than of postmodern thought. I have often claimed that the Christian should be comfortable with paradox and ambiguity, so why not here?

I am forced, therefore, to answer that it is at least possible that God could know the future and we could be free. Saying that God cannot know the future and allow us to be free violates one of my own rules of theological reasoning (the DWP principle, or God can do as God Darn Well Pleases). Placing strictures on God's abilities is hazardous, at best, as we are very incapable of truly understanding God completely.

As I have said before in my responses to those who read my previous open theism posting, scripture is at best ambiguous on God's understanding of the future. At some points, God clearly states knowing the future, at other points, human beings change God's mind. I should take my own advice and be open to and willing to live in ambiguity.

Therefore, I further modify my understanding of Open theism to mean that God's interaction with the future is Open, sometimes knowing events, sometimes not knowing, sometimes predicting and working around, sometimes foreordaining. God's providence is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend, and while we should use our reason in conjunction with our faith, we should be willing to accept a solution reason alone cannot fully endorse. I should have known better than to force myself to choose between the four main viewpoints on divine foreknowledge, I should have done what Jim Kirk (yes, I am a nerd) would do, and make a new option.

Engagement

2005-08-04T09:01:00.000-05:00

My life has taken an exciting turn, as I am now engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world, Norma Toledo. We will be married December 10th, 2005, at a venue yet to be determined in San Antonio. We got engaged on the 27th of July, at the Gazebo by the duck pond of Hardin-Simmons University, where I got on one knee and asked her to marry me. She said yes, then informed me that in my nervousness I had put the ring on the wrong hand!

Needless to say we are very excited, and plans for the wedding are unfolding.

Tank,
The engaged one.

Falwell Attacks Chrsitian Alliance for Progress

2005-07-20T10:44:00.000-05:00

Following is my response to Falwell's letter he sent out about the Christian Alliance for Progress:

Mr. Falwell,
It is a shame that Christianity has been reduced to a few litmust tests to determine authentic devotion to Christ. You claim to serve Christ, but your letter shows that all you really care about is your own political agenda. You have reduced Jesus' ministry to one dimension, salvation. If Jesus only came to seek and save the lost, then why do you spend so much time bellyaching about certain sins? Why do you dare to assume that God only approves of one political party? Why do you set up your shibboleths without any mention of love?

Surely the Jesus who was friend to tax collectors and prostitutes could find it in his heart to be nice to people who might be homosexual. Jesus never condemned specific sins, but rather those who were religious hypocrites (the Pharisees). Do you remember what he said to the woman who comitted adultery? It was not "at least you didn't sleep with another woman, or, at least you're not going to have an abortion." No, Jesus said, "Go forth and sin no more."
Do your remember what Jesus said to the thief on the cross? It was not, "vote Republican," but "Today you will be with me in paradise."

The religious right and its members are the Judaizers of the twenty-first century. Instead of saying one has to be circumcized and become a Jew to be saved, now they are saying one has to become a Republican to be a True Christian.

Are Americans the new Chaldeans?

2005-06-01T08:18:00.000-05:00

My sermon I will be preaching on Sunday will come from Habakkuk 2:4-14. You may be familiar with part of it, "The Righteous will live by faith (other translations might say "his faithfulness"). This is where Paul quotes from when he says that "The Righteous will live by faith." However, reducing the text to that one phrase would be (as Dr. Gary Gramling would say) doing violence to the text. That one brief thought comes in the middle of a prophetic book that condemns the Chaldeans (Babylonians) for their atrocities done to other nations. Many believe Habakkuk was written right before Babylon took the Southern Kingdom of Judah into exile, which would mean Habakkuk was condemning those who would soon conquer his nation.

Habakkuk said that the Chaldeans were as insatiable as death in their desire to trod other nations under their heel. He condemned them for pulling themselves up by pushing others down, sometimes financially, sometimes militarily, sometimes socially. All of this is contrasted by the phrase in verse four, "the righteous will be justified by his faithfulness. While Paul later reinterpreted that to mean the righteous will be justified by faith in God, Habakkuk more likely meant that the righteous will be justified by faithfulness to follow God's terms for the covenant, i.e. the law, and more importantly, the spirit of the law as seen in the other prophets. I believe both Habakkuk's and Paul's intents in using this phrase are compatible, because Paul took Habakkuk's meaning and developed it further in light of Jesus Christ.

As I said earlier, however, a sermon on this text should not be reduced to a homily on "the righteous shall live by faith." It should be taken beyond the personal level, to deal with what the prophet dealt with, the evil a nation does in expanding itself. I am forced to wonder, how much of the prophet's accusations against Babylon apply to the United States? Do we conquer others to expand our own territory? Do we build our economy on the backs of poorer nations? How do these questions relate to our action in present day Babylon (Iraq)?

To the first question I am forced to answer, "Not anymore." Now when we send our military in to take over a nation, we give it back to the people of that nation, even though we place leaders of our own choosing over the people, they are natives of that country. Since WWII, our track record has been pretty good, even if we did not always successfully defend that new leadership. However, in the past, we built our country by taking it from others. The primarily European immigrants to America got our country for us by taking it away, either by force or deception (although rarely by honest means) from the Native Americans who already lived here. Some even went so far as to call America the new Israel and the Native Americans the new communities whom God had commanded should be driven from the land!

To the second question I am forced to say at least partially yes. Liberation Theologians such as Leonardo and Clodovis Boff claim that the richer, first world nations gained any of their riches by exploiting the two-thirds world and keeping them poor. I am not enough of an economist or historian to know how accurate those accusations are. Furthermore, having been ins one of those countries I believe some of their problems lie within, and not without. However, I think that there is some degree of truth to their claims.

As to the the third question, whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, we removed a regime who very clearly committed the atrocities outlined in Habakkuk chapter two. Saddam Hussein even styled himself at one point as the new Nebuchadnezzar. However, our conduct as a nation , now that we are there, will determine whether or not we are committing the same crimes.

Open What!?

2005-05-03T13:44:00.000-05:00

What do you mean God doesn’t know the future? That is often the response when someone tries to explain the much debated concept of open theism. It’s name comes from the idea that God is open to the possibilities of the future, or in other words that God leaves the future open by not knowing exactly what will happen. Scholars began to question how people could be truly free if God knew the future. The reasoning went something like this: If God already knows what I’m going to have for dinner, then the only thing I can have for dinner is what God knows I will. Therefore, while I appear to have a choice, I do not really have freedom because there is only one possibility. For me to be truly free, God can not know for sure what I will choose. They began to consider the possibility that God does not know the future (or put a better way leaves the future open) so that we might freely choose how to live our life. That means there was the real possibility that Jesus could have decided not to go through with the crucifixion, that Peter really did not have to deny Jesus three times, that we were not predestined to sin and fall from grace.
That statement where many people depart from open theism is “God cannot.” How can we believe in a God who is not all powerful, who doesn’t know everything? Isn’t even considering the possibility a heresy?
However, for someone who does not believe free will and foreknowledge (the idea that God knows exactly what is going to happen) are compatible are forced to make a choice, either accept the idea that we are free and the future is open (open theism), that the future has been determined and we are not free (most forms of Calvinism).
I prefer to think of Open Theism as a series of what God can and does do, rather than the idea that God is incapable.
I believe God could know the future if God so chose, but in order to give us free will, God leaves the future open, and does not treat the future as though it were a sort of reverse memory, or reading ahead in the book, if you will. I believe that God knows all possible futures, and simply chooses not to know which path the future will take. God is also extremely intelligent, and, based on how well God knows us, probably pretty good at guessing what we will do in a situation.
I believe that God is still capable of accomplishing God’s will while leaving the future open. God works in the hearts of people through the Holy Spirit to lead them to accomplish God’s purposes on Earth, and when one person fails, another is led to take his or her place.
The God of Open Theism is a God who takes risks, who chooses the more difficult road of leaving the future open and allowing us to make mistakes.
I’m sure you’re wondering right now, what does the Bible have to say about all of this? Well, in some places it speaks of God knowing exactly everything about the future, and in other places it speaks of Moses changing God’s mind, of God being surprised at the conduct of the people of Israel, of God condemning Kings and then recanting after those kings repent. The simple truth is, either view has strengths and weaknesses in scripture, and responsible examination of the Bible could lead someone to either conclusion. You will have to decide for yourself which is right.

Is your faith like a plate of Spaghetti?

2005-04-19T08:15:00.000-05:00

What in the world does postmodern mean? People call art, architecture, and even religion post modern. The word does get overused sometimes, but maybe this article can explain some of what is meant by the word “post modern.” But before you can understand postmodern, you have to understand modern.

The modern era began as a philosophical movement by Renee Descartes. He saw Europe embroiled in war and divided by ideology, religion, and nationality. His dream was to unite humanity so that those divisions never again caused one group of people to war with another. To do that, he intended to create a way of thinking that would unite everyone. He decided he needed a foundation that absolutely could not be doubted or reduced. To do that, he doubted everything he could, from his own existence, to candles, to God. Eventually, he realized the only thing he could not doubt was that he could doubt. This is where he came up with the phrase “I think, therefore I am.” From this foundation, he built back up and proved the existence of God rationally, and he thought no one would disagree with him.

As a result, philosophers decided that people had to be absolutely certain about anything they believed. This line of thinking branched off into two groups, especially as they concerned religion. One group believed that experience was the ultimate authority for belief, and anything in religion that did not match up with experience was to be rejected. This group came to be called liberal. Another group decided experience was not authoritative, and that an outside source was to be the ultimate authority. This group came to be called conservative. These groups became so extreme that neither allowed for the methods of the other, the liberals rejected almost all the Bible, and the conservatives built a wall around the bible and chastised any who might think to hard about the Bible.

A second result of modernism was an extreme emphasis on logical reasoning. Both conservatives and liberals had to have their faith laid out in a logical, analytically sound manner, and both had to have a firm, unshakeable foundation. A way of describing this method of thinking is a firm, concrete foundation with blocks stacked one on top of the other. Each block must rest on the one below, and go in an unshakeable line directly down to the bottom. The result was that doubt was handled inappropriately: the liberals surrendered to doubt, and the conservatives ignored doubt, believing it to be weakness. Both methods are wrong. Authentic faith can doubt, and faith is ironically stronger when someone struggles with doubt, instead of surrendering to or ignoring that doubt.

This is where the beauty of postmodernism comes in. Postmodern ways of thinking allow for both outside and inside sources for knowledge. For example, both the Bible and a person’s relationship with Christ (experience) can be a source of knowledge. Multiple sources, in fact, may be used for the beginnings of what we know. Here the model for thinking could be like a plate of spaghetti and meatballs, where the meatballs are the sources of knowledge and the spaghetti is the connecting lines of thought. Doubt is easier to handle, because if one meatball is taken away, others can compensate for its loss. If one line of thinking is faulty, other lines of thinking can be moved around to compensate.

Do not get lost in the analogy, however. Just because I said the meatballs can be taken away does not mean that you can decide not to believe the Bible or believe in Jesus. What I mean to say is that postmodern ways of thinking allow for doubt in a way that modern thought does not. Instead of ignoring or surrendering to doubt, post modernity embraces doubt and works through it. Rational thinking can only take you so far, until you must leap out beyond certainty toward believing in a God who defies logic, who is unscientific, and cannot be measured. You must believe in the unbelievable, for if you could truly prove the existence of God, you could not then have true faith.