If we believe in Total Depravity then what do we do with this passage:
At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea." (Acts 10:1-6 ESV)
The result of the story is that Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and he was saved.
We know that our good works do not earn our salvation. In this case, however, Cornelius' good works moved God to make sure that Peter received salvation. Wow! That really runs against the grain of what we would otherwise expect, doesn't it?
Well, I don't want to build a doctrine on this single episode. I just think it should cause us to pause and acknowledge that the nature of our goodness or badness might be a little more complex than some are willing to admit.
Apologetically, I think we should not denigrate the goodness in people. Mis-quoting verses like Isa 64:6 as "Our righteousness is like filthy rags in the sight of a holy God" is, I think, unwise and ineffective. (Look up the verse in context; it says nothing like we make it say.) We can acknowledge that many non-believers perform wonderful acts of goodness with good motives all the time.
The point is that how many good things one does is not the payout window (to borrow an expression from Vin Scully). The problem that we all face is that we have sinned. Though it only takes one sin to break faith with God, that is an unnecessary point. Each of us have sinned many many times and we know it. Our sins separate us from God and he can not have fellowship with sin. We would be lost and without hope but for the fact that God made a way for us to be saved from our sins and their consequences.
And this is point we should make clear--God has made the way. Face it, who else could do so? Not sinful humanity. We are the problem--he is the solution. It is not just that there is a way, but the point is that God decided to create that way. And how simple that way is: Receive the grace and forgiveness present in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made by dying for our sins. No long periods of study. No hours of meditation. No piling up of good works. No knocking on doors. Just receive the gift, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ESV) This might be a tough concept for someone to believe but, once believed, it is easy to accept.
Good works make the earthly life better for the individual and for those around him. But it is only the grace of God that gains him eternal life.
This is not where I wanted to go with this post. Check back in a day or so and I will finish the thought on the mistake of being too extreme with Total Depravity
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Youth can be boring too
The Who's performance at last year's Super Bowl was so lackluster that I remarked at the time that it would kill the six year run of classic rock artists (Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Who). Sure enough, this year the organizers turned to one of the darlings of the modern musical sphere: The Black-Eyed Peas.
There were touches of the MTV-produced days. More emphasis on dancing/production than on the musical performance. Unannounced guest stars. Younger, hipper music. The only problem: It was just as boring to me as others found the classic rock acts.
Please, I am not being an old fart who believes my music was better (although there is truth in that statement). I have always been more about the music than the production. Guest artists are fine if there is a point to it. And though I don't like hip-hop, the BEP do perform a catchy mix of genres.
The real problem is that they tried to do so much that the show was unfocused. You only have 12 minutes--make them count. Was that really Slash? They could have trotted out any tall skinny guy with a top hat and Les Paul. He was only on stage for a half-minute and added nothing other than a guitar riff that could have come from the back-up tape. And when did Usher become a back-up dancer?
They should have just done most of their three best party songs with one ballad thrown in the middle. By trying to do so much, it just fell flat.
The biggest crime, however, was the sound mixing. Couldn't they get whoever does sound for the band (and who knows their songs) to mix? They did? Well, that was embarrassing. From the opening notes, the sound was wrong and it never really improved. With the improvements in broadcast sound technology, it's not as if they were trying to mix for the Ed Sullivan Show. They have the equipment; the humans operating it were incompetent. I would like to hear more about what happened there.
Their performance is getting mixed reviews. It will be interesting to see what they do in the future. Can't they just find some performers who are well-liked (a youth act this year, a classic rock act the next) who will just give a good tight musical performance and leave it at that? Is that too much to ask?
There were touches of the MTV-produced days. More emphasis on dancing/production than on the musical performance. Unannounced guest stars. Younger, hipper music. The only problem: It was just as boring to me as others found the classic rock acts.
Please, I am not being an old fart who believes my music was better (although there is truth in that statement). I have always been more about the music than the production. Guest artists are fine if there is a point to it. And though I don't like hip-hop, the BEP do perform a catchy mix of genres.
The real problem is that they tried to do so much that the show was unfocused. You only have 12 minutes--make them count. Was that really Slash? They could have trotted out any tall skinny guy with a top hat and Les Paul. He was only on stage for a half-minute and added nothing other than a guitar riff that could have come from the back-up tape. And when did Usher become a back-up dancer?
They should have just done most of their three best party songs with one ballad thrown in the middle. By trying to do so much, it just fell flat.
The biggest crime, however, was the sound mixing. Couldn't they get whoever does sound for the band (and who knows their songs) to mix? They did? Well, that was embarrassing. From the opening notes, the sound was wrong and it never really improved. With the improvements in broadcast sound technology, it's not as if they were trying to mix for the Ed Sullivan Show. They have the equipment; the humans operating it were incompetent. I would like to hear more about what happened there.
Their performance is getting mixed reviews. It will be interesting to see what they do in the future. Can't they just find some performers who are well-liked (a youth act this year, a classic rock act the next) who will just give a good tight musical performance and leave it at that? Is that too much to ask?
Friday, February 4, 2011
What were they thinking?
To rip off Marc Anthony, I have not come to bury Charlie Sheen, but to bury others. First a recap.
A successful actor, Charlie Sheen has been known to live a life of utter debauchery. You know the story well enough that I don't have to repeat it. His latest entry into rehab was not his first.
Since 2003, he has been the star of the very popular television program Two and a Half Men. The recurring theme of the show is his character's debauched lifestyle. Much alcohol and many women (including prostitutes) are what his character lives for. It's a bit of an inside joke, though everyone else gets it. Here, art imitates life as Charlie's past lifestyle is parodied in his character's.
The problem is that it seems that Sheen has never successfully kicked his vices. Even during the show's run, he has been the cover-boy of the tabloids for his on-again, off-again escapades.
I sincerely hope that this rehab trip does him some good. Even if he brings destruction upon himself, I would like to see him free from it and live a normal life. Better yet, I pray that there is a strong believer near him who can bring him to Christ. But that's not what this post is about.
It is funny in a way to lampoon the real-life Charlie Sheen in the fictional Charlie Harper. But I am wondering what is going through the minds of the writers and producers as they turn out this product. I suppose if Sheen had been completely rehabbed, it would be amusing to have him play the person he used to be but from which he has broken free.
But how do you write scripts detailing his boorish behavior when he still engages in it? When you know Charlie Sheen and you see how he is damaging his own life, when does it stop being funny? The dues the fictional character pays pale in comparison to what the actor is paying. Don't these people have any responsibility here at all?
Furthermore, are you in some way enabling him in his behavior by making a joke of it? Maybe he would realize he has a problem if you cast him in a drama where this lifestyle completely ruins him. As long as he struggles with his addictions, I think the laughter is hollow.
So I don't come to bury Charlie Sheen. I think it is Charlie Harper who should be buried. And maybe a few writers with him.
A successful actor, Charlie Sheen has been known to live a life of utter debauchery. You know the story well enough that I don't have to repeat it. His latest entry into rehab was not his first.
Since 2003, he has been the star of the very popular television program Two and a Half Men. The recurring theme of the show is his character's debauched lifestyle. Much alcohol and many women (including prostitutes) are what his character lives for. It's a bit of an inside joke, though everyone else gets it. Here, art imitates life as Charlie's past lifestyle is parodied in his character's.
The problem is that it seems that Sheen has never successfully kicked his vices. Even during the show's run, he has been the cover-boy of the tabloids for his on-again, off-again escapades.
I sincerely hope that this rehab trip does him some good. Even if he brings destruction upon himself, I would like to see him free from it and live a normal life. Better yet, I pray that there is a strong believer near him who can bring him to Christ. But that's not what this post is about.
It is funny in a way to lampoon the real-life Charlie Sheen in the fictional Charlie Harper. But I am wondering what is going through the minds of the writers and producers as they turn out this product. I suppose if Sheen had been completely rehabbed, it would be amusing to have him play the person he used to be but from which he has broken free.
But how do you write scripts detailing his boorish behavior when he still engages in it? When you know Charlie Sheen and you see how he is damaging his own life, when does it stop being funny? The dues the fictional character pays pale in comparison to what the actor is paying. Don't these people have any responsibility here at all?
Furthermore, are you in some way enabling him in his behavior by making a joke of it? Maybe he would realize he has a problem if you cast him in a drama where this lifestyle completely ruins him. As long as he struggles with his addictions, I think the laughter is hollow.
So I don't come to bury Charlie Sheen. I think it is Charlie Harper who should be buried. And maybe a few writers with him.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Israel and the Second Coming
When the late 19th- early 20th-century fervor over the Second Coming arose, there was no nation of Israel. Jews were scattered all over the earth. There were a few living in the land known as Palestine. Larger scale immigration to the land began after 1881 as Jews fled eastern European pogroms.
Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.
Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.
Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.
Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.
Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)
I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.
I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.
Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.
Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.
Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.
Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.
Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)
I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.
I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
