Tag Archive for 'faith'

Babel Fish

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 12 May 2008
in Quotations
. 0 Comments

The following extract is from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mind-bogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune when he used it as the central argument in his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

Babel Fish

Faith and works

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 10 May 2008
in Bible and Church
. 0 Comments

I read James 2 this morning, the almost infamous passage which apparently contradicts Paul's theology that we are saved only by faith, that there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation.  I don't think it does say that, however.  Here is the passage in full, from the ESV:

2.14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But
someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith
apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and
the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it
was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And
in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works
when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (ESV)

The particularly difficult verse is 24: 'You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.'  This seems to contradict Paul's assertion in Romans (which intriguingly quotes the exact same verse about Abraham from Genesis):

4.1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (ESV)

Even more starkly, in Romans 3.28 Paul says, 'For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.'  What is this apparent contradiction?  Are Paul and James saying the exact opposite?

Well no, actually!  One of Paul's main points throughout Romans is that salvation depends entirely on God's grace.  No-one can keep the law, no-one can be holy as God is holy, everyone messes up, except Jesus.  In and through Jesus God offers us the free gift of life, of redemption, salvation and justification, all those long words that basically mean we are given the gift of new life.  We don't earn it, we are simply given it.

Now James is making a different point.  He is saying that faith on its own means nothing - even the demons believe in God!  If you have no works - if your faith does not affect how you live your life - then your faith is not really faith.  Works demonstrate whether or not you really have faith, and so in that sense 'complete' it.  The works in v.24 are therefore the 'works of faith', rather than 'works without faith'.

In other words, James is not saying that 'works without faith' justify, but he is saying that 'faith without works' is not really faith.  He is arguing that we need 'faith that produces works'.

Looking at the context of both passages from James and Romans demonstrates that they are not contradictory after all.  In fact, much later in Romans (12.1 and onwards) Paul writes one of his great 'therefore's.  Having expounded grace and the need for it over the previous eleven chapters, he begins his section on ethics.  We have been given a great gift, therefore we must live our lives accordingly.  In other words, faith on its own is not faith: real faith produces works, produces love for our neighbours, generosity, etc.

We need to get away from the absolute contrast between faith and works.  We can sometimes make it sound like we have no responsibility to do anything except 'preach the good news'.  We must of course do that, but we must also demonstrate and 'complete' our faith by the 'good works' that God has 'prepared in advance' for us to do (Ephesians 2.10).

Assurance

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 April 2008
in Bible, Church and Theology
. 3 Comments

I had a long conversation last night with a good friend about various theological topics.  Some of them will find their way on here, in time.  The first of them is the doctrine of assurance.  How can we be confident that we are saved?  Is such confidence possible?

For Methodists, 'assurance' historically refers to a feeling of peace and joy that our sins are forgiven.  An example might be John Wesley's famous line, 'I felt my heart strangely warmed.'  He goes on to say:

I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation. And an
assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and
saved me from the law of sin and death.

Assurance of God's love

On this understanding, assurance is the feeling that accompanies faith in God's promises.

The difficulty is of course that feelings can mislead us.  It is entirely possible for someone to feel 'assured' of their salvation, without having the accompanying faith.

It is therefore perhaps more helpful to talk about assurance in terms of faith.  God has promised that those who believe in him will have eternal life, that if we believe in the salvation won for us by Jesus on the cross, we will be saved:

It is not possible for someone to be genuinely broken by sin, genuinely
to believe that Christ is the only way to salvation and genuinely to
have asked God for salvation, and yet still to be unsaved.

Assurance and Election

This is the most we can say: God has promised certain things in Scripture.  Therefore if God is true to his Word, then what God has promised will happen.  At the end of the day we can never be 100% certain that God exists, or we would not have faith, we would simply know.

However we can be almost 100% certain that he does, and therefore almost 100% certain that we will be saved if we trust in his promises.

Church Growth

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 4 January 2008
in Church
. 0 Comments

At the end of last term we had a study week on Church Growth & Church Planting.  It was a good week - one of the better study weeks.

One of the points of interest for me was that, although the week was focused primarily on numerical growth and planting, there were a couple of sessions about discipleship.  I have often placed more emphasis on discipleship than evangelism, thinking it more important to grow deeper before growing wider.

However, I think that each is equally important, and that each feeds the other.  The more people existing Christians see coming to faith, the deeper their own faith becomes.  Equally, people with a strong and deep relationship with God become more like him, and therefore more attractive and able to share their faith in a non-threatening and powerful way.

Many Anglican churches are stuck in 'discipleship' mode; and even that has been watered down to little more than maintenance of what is already existing.  Without new Christians, a church becomes stagnant, and without depth new and existing Christians wither and die.

The challenge to me, and to the Anglican church, is a renewed focus on evangelism and numerical growth, which is after all a sign of the kingdom throughout the New Testament.  God still wants people who know him more and more, and people to know him for the first time.

Believing the Trinity

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 8 December 2007
in Theology
. 0 Comments

This was originally published as a comment on this blog on 13 June 2006.

Someone once asked me to explain the Trinity to her. I did the standard three-in-one, one-in-three stuff. Not particularly effectively perhaps, because she looked at me and asked, 'How can you believe something that doesn't make sense?'

It's a tricky one, and all the analogies in the world don't actually help someone who wants to understand what it means to say one-in-three, three-in-one. Because the point is that we are not the supreme arbiters of what makes sense and what doesn't. If we could understand God, if we could explain how it is that he is as he is, then he would be smaller than us, than our finite minds.

I wish I'd thought of it then, but my response should probably have been, 'How can you believe something that does make sense?' If I can fully understand something, why should I put my faith in it? I'm not talking petty faith, like I put in my chair, but real, life-faith, that relies on something greater than myself.

The fact that we can't understand God doesn't mean we shouldn't try. (Some of the greatest and most interesting theology I have read was written about the Trinity.) But it does act as a warning sign. Most congregations will probably not appreciate a sermon that's long enough to even begin to explain some of the ins and outs of the doctrine of the Trinity.

So what do you preach? Good question.

Blair the Nutter?

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 26 November 2007
in Church and Culture
. 1 Comment

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said:

I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter.

A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values.

If Blair had been able to relate this vision to his policies, we would have had more constructive social policy at home and principled policies abroad.

Blair 'nutter' fear angers bishop

This is a fascinating question. In America there is a strict separation between Church and State, yet politicians freely talk about their faith - indeed, it is rare to succeed to the highest levels of government without such (Christian) faith. In the UK we have an established Church, yet our politics has little or no religion in it. At any whiff of 'the God thing' there there comes the cry of fundamentalism.

I think that Bishop Michael is unfairly criticizing Tony Blair. I always admired the fact that Blair was up front and honest about his Christian convictions. I was sometimes disappointed at his government's policies, but I recognized that 1) he was leader of a party, the majority of whose members are probably not Christians, and 2) he was the Prime Minister of a country the majority of whose citizens are not Christians.

The fact that Blair felt he would be ridiculed in the press if he made more of his faith in his leadership is not his fault, but an accurate reading of the British press (so, for example, the treatment of George Bush when he made the unfortunate comment about the 'crusade' against terror, etc). Bishop Michael should instead be angered at the intolerance shown in the media towards religion, especially Christianity.

Somehow this century the Church of England has become something to be patronised, little more than the caretaker of flower shows and most of the country's oldest buildings, a kind of National Trust with weekly meetings. There is little or no sense that religion affects the way we live our lives. Ironically, one of the contributions of Richard Dawkins et al is the realisation that religion does affect the way we live - it cannot be dismissed simply as ineffective.

The question therefore is, what is its effect, and do we want it as a society?

Barth on Liturgy and the Apostolic Succession

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 2 November 2007
in Bible, Quotations and Theology
. 0 Comments

I'm currently reading a lot of Barth. Expect more quotations to come!

It is a strange thing that when there are revisions of books of order and hymn-books in the Evangelical churches every possible authority is usually consulted as standard but not dogmatic science. The results usually correspond.

Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1, 81

Perhaps we could add modern worship songs to the list; one of my constant frustrations in churches is the use of songs with poor - sometimes misleading - theology.

Here is a typically long sentence by Barth, but he makes (I think) an excellent point. I heard it made similarly a couple of days ago: the apostolic succession means those who succeed the previous generation in faith and doctrine, not physically by the laying-on of hands. This is similar to Paul's argument in Romans 4 about the descendents of Abraham being by faith, not flesh.

The protest of Protestantism in this question of [Apostolic] succession is directed solely and simply against the fact that the Tu es Petrus, etc., is mechanically transferred over Peter's head to every succeeding bishop as a second, third and hundredth Peter, as if the succession and tradition of the Peter of Mt. 16 to whom flesh and blood had not revealed such things, could be related to any succession but a spiritual one, or as if, being spiritual, it could be tied to the secular circumstance of a list of bishops of this kind.

Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1, 103

Although 'the Rock' is Peter himself, he is only called 'the Rock' after he makes a confession about who Jesus is. So, Peter is properly 'the Rock' on which the church will be built only as one who rightly confesses who Jesus is. Those who truly succeed Peter in the church are therefore those who rightly confess who Jesus is.

Of course, such people do include many (hopefully most!) bishops. But it is important to stress that those bishops only have ecclesiastical authority derived from Peter if they too make the confession: 'Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.'