Monthly Archive for October, 2007

What is God like?

One of humankind's most enduring questions is: what is God like? To what might we compare him? I will write more on this in the future – I'm currently writing a piece on revelation, which will look at this question.

For now – I read Psalm 48 this morning. The last two verses are:

(13) Take note of the fortified walls,
and tour all the citadels,
that you may describe them to future generations.
(14) For that is what God is like.
He is our God for ever and ever,
and he will be our guide until we die. (NLT)

The Psalmist looks around at the city of Jerusalem, at its strength and beauty, and sees the likeness of God. Israel's capital is often used as a metaphor for the whole country – God's gift to his people, promised for ever and ever. In the same way that Jerusalem's fortified walls and citadels defend it from attack, so God defends his people.

It doesn't do to push metaphors too far – especially when they are used as analogies for God – but something really hit me as I read those verses this morning. Perhaps Jesus was thinking about this Psalm when he promised that 'the gates of Hell' would 'not prevail' against the Church – because God is our fortified wall.

New Website

It has been a long time (nearly two years) since I last updated my website. I have been working on something for ages – then I recently got fed up and used a template for another site I wrote last year! I hope you enjoy using it as much as I enjoyed setting it up. It looks best in Firefox and Internet Explorer 7.

Everything is searchable, as before, but I have added a lot of new content – most of the sermons I've preached, and a few of my best essays. I will continue to add new things, particularly to the Essay and Sermon sections.

Please have a play with the site – if you particularly like something, break anything, or have a suggestion for any improvements, please let me know and I'll see what I can do!

Pooh Studies

If you've ever been worried by source criticism of the Bible, you should probably read this.

Five-point Calvinism

I once got into an argument with a leader of a Christian organisation about various things, one of which was five-point Calvinism. The five points helpfully make up the word TULIP:

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

(T) The definition of the five can go to extremes. For example, my definition of 'T' is that every area of our lives is tainted by sin – in that sense, we are totally depraved. The cariacature of 'T' is that every area of our lives is totally tainted by sin.

(U) Unconditional election – no problem, I think the Bible is absolutely clear that we are (and can be) saved only by God's grace, so that when he chooses us it is not based on merit, but on his grace. And election is a concept that runs throughout the Bible.

(I) Irresistible grace – an interesting one, it doesn't spring to mind immediately from my own knowledge of Scripture. It is effectively another safeguard for 'grace not works', like 'U'. If we can resist God's grace, that means we have some measure of power over him, and that in some way we must be responsible for our salvation, by not resisting his grace. Besides, in my own life I'm not sure I have a choice when it comes to believing in God – there have been times when I have wanted to stop, but I haven't been able to.

(P) Perseverance of the sains – true, but a difficult one in churches, because you can never be sure who the saints really are! We should always assume that people who appear committed to Jesus and his church actually are, but of course they may not be. Those that are, have been unconditionally elected by God, the recipients of his irresistible grace, and so must persevere.

(L) As you have probably noticed I missed out 'L'. Limited atonement is, for me, the one I don't quite agree with. 'L' states that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. However, 1 John 2.2 makes it perfectly clear that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. However, his death is only efficacious – that is, it only has salvific effect – for those who believe. Christ died for all, and welcomes all – but only those who receive him by faith receive the benefits of his passion (to use the traditional language of BCP).

That is why I am not a five-point Calvinist, but a four-and-a-half-point Calvinist.

Judgement and the Old Testament

One of the problems that some Christians have with the idea of penal substitution is the idea of God's judgement (I know because I've been there myself). This concept of a vengeful, wrathful God seems alien to some. And, after all, in the New Testament although God's judgement is regularly threatened, it only rarely gets carried out.

However, I do wonder if the remedy is a bit more of the Old Testament. Many (most) evangelicals today are closet Marcionites – that is, they don't really use the Old Testament properly, if at all. But judgement is a major theme of the Old Testament, especially in the prophets. I have just been reading the tail-end of Jeremiah, where there are a series of judgement prophecies against the nations surrounding Israel, for idolatrous behaviour.

It is against this backdrop of God punishing nations for their sin that God sent Jesus. Judgement is a real and dangerous threat to us because we really sin – so unless his righteous judgement can be carried out, God is not a righteous judge. The glorious thing is that in Jesus God demonstrates both his judgement and his love at the same time, punishing sin and offering new life all at once.

My point here is: God's judgement is real and needs to be carried out, which the Old Testament makes abundantly clear.

Gmail Storage

So in the last four or five days, the storage on my Gmail account has shot up from 2.8Gb to just under 3.6Gb! I should have bought some shares in Seagate or Western Digital..

Rugby Union

So after my last post on rugby it seems that the 'consistently good sides' of Australia and New Zealand failed to live up to their potential. England's forwards hammered the Wallabies in spectacular fashion, and the Kiwis never really got going against Les Bleus. Northern Hemisphere rugby is perhaps not in such dire straits after all!

It did get me wondering. Australia and (especially) New Zealand each had straightforward group matches. England and France had to fight for their positions in the quarter-finals, and each were the underdog in their respective games. Did Australia and New Zealand expect their quarter-finals to be as easy as their group games? I suspect it was a combination of that, and sheer grit and determination from England and France.

So today it's the turn of Fiji and Scotland to upset the bookies!