So, Cooper and I decided to run a local 5K road race. I decided weeks ago, but did absolutely nothing to prepare for it. I talked Cooper into running with me just this past Wednesday. Cooper did train a little, in that he ran several laps around the yard for the three days leading up to the race.
The race was yesterday. We thought it started at 9:30. It started at nine. How I made that mistake, I just don't know, especially considering I was promoting the race in Berea, Wilmore, Richmond, and electronically.
Cooper and I preregistered, so we didn't plan on getting there too early. As we approached downtown, we saw the lead vehicle and lead runners rounding the second corner, which is at least 1/4 mile into the race. Crud!
I drove up to the next intersection where Cooper and I abandoned the vehicle, Laurie, and the younger kids, and ran to the registration desk to get our numbers. We quickly put them on and got Cooper out of his long sleeves and long pants and began the race. Needless to say, we were behind.
The first portion of the race went through the center of the town festival - the Mountain Mushroom Festival. Since we were so behind the others, the crowds had closed in and we had to fight through the crowded street to stay on course. As we got around to the second turn, the crowd was much thinner and we were making better time. Up ahead, we could see the truck following well behind the participants picking up the road cones that sanctioned off the race path. I told Cooper if we couldn't catch up with and get a head of that truck, we wouldn't have a safe path away from the traffic. So, he really started pushing himself. We passed the truck and were tearing up the road at a pretty good clip for an out of shape Dad running with and eight year old.
As we passed the next intersection, we saw our friend Tom Bonny. As part of the Kiwanis, he was a road guard attempting to keep traffic from hitting the race participants. He was about to give up his post when he saw us coming. He told us that we needed to catch up with ad pass the police car up ahead. That was the designated trail vehicle, another safety measure. I said that we'd give it a shot and explained to Cooper what we needed to do. We both picked up our pace and Cooper began pulling ahead of me a bit. We passed the police car, with a howdy on the way. We were now, finally, officially at the tail end of the race.
From there, we started passing the walkers, picking the off one at a time. All along, I kept coaching Cooper. He was running relatively flat-footed, which is terrible for your legs. I could hear him beating his feet on the ground, thump, thump, thump, thump and I coached him to roll his foot as he goes. I didn't really pay attention to his form until about 3/4 of a mile, or maybe even a mile, into the race. He was flailing his arms, they were wild out of control. I talked him into a better running form, but who knows how much energy he had already wasted with the pounding feet and flailing arms. With frequent reminders, his form improved, and I got him running mostly in the grass at the road's edge, when it was available.
As we passed the 1 mile marker, Cooper was still full of energy and we were still passing people left and right. Actually, they were predominantly on our right. At about a mile and a third, Cooper was ready for a break. I had to spur him on a bit farther. When we got to a later intersection, where my Dad, Cooper's Pop-pop was the Kiwanian road Guard, Cooper finally decided he needed to walk. That was probably about a mile and 1/2 into the race. I walked intermittently with Cooper from there on. Occasionally, I would spur him on with comments like; lets try to catch the lady with the dog, or we'll run when we get to the next utility pole, which Cooper would often try to negotiate to the second pole.
I did pretty well keeping him running on the down hills and he was eager to run as we passed Nana's and Poppa's house, which was probably 1/4 mile past the two mile marker. I'm very grateful they were out on their porch. I hollered out when I saw them, Poppa! and they cheered heartily for us, to the point I could feel myself blushing. But, it did wonders for Cooper and his attitude. he ran hard for quiet a while after that. At the next intersection, again we saw my Dad and he encouraged us too. So, Cooper ran well past him.
Afterwards, Cooper was pretty well licked. He was eager to walk and even mentioned that he wante dto drop ot of the race. I told him that he could. But reminded him that there was a pancake breakfast was at the finish line. Cooper is a huge fan of pancakes.
We were getting near the finish and we started seeing lots of people from the Kiwanis at the intersection, most of them were calling me by name and asking who I had running with me. Their accolades prompted Cooper to endure running bit longer.
As we neared the Irvine High Apartments, I was telling Cooper that Pop-pop and I both went to school there, me as a first and fourth grader, and Pop-pop for his elementary education. I told him that now Aunt Jeannette lived there and might be watching him out the window. I also told him that at the far end, in the cafeteria, the pancake breakfast was waiting for us.
And then, I dropped the best two pieces of news I could think of. First, Cooper, I can see the finish line from here! And then, there's Mama and the kids. He new it was over. He was revived. And he finished the race... in front of me, I might add. We sure had passed a lot of people.
We stuck around for the awards ceremony. We were sure how many kids there were in the 12 and under category and were hoping Cooper might chance a win, place, or show. He didn't. He was a little disappointed and I don't blame him. In fact, as hard as he had run and as little as he complained in site of my pushing him onward, I was a bit saddened by it as well. He really did well, not that our race times reflected it.
He seemed somewhat comforted that I got a medal, but I was slightly embarrassed, and a whole lot surprised at my getting one; there just weren't that many in my age group. I didn't feel comfortable sporting a third place finish with a time in the low forties. After all, in my prime, I had come in the top three over all finishers at this race before and people there knew it.
I told cooper that I was sorry that he didn't get anything and told him I suspect that he would have if we had gotten to the race on time. So, in short, it was my fault he didn't. He seemed to think that was okay. And we went and ate pancakes.
We're both sore today, but Cooper still wants to run it again next year. He's a little champ.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
My latest crash course.
This week, I participated a class in Wilmore. The class was WO515: Sacramental Worship: Christ in Church. It met everyday from 8:00 until 5:00 (if it didn't let out early). For the duration of the course, I agreed to pick up a friend in Lexington who does not drive. This addition would lengthened my already 70-75 minute journey to Wilmore by about 30 minutes. Furthermore, because of the need for a computer and the limited number of electrical receptacles in the classroom, we needed to get to class as early as possible.
In order to get there in a timely manner, I was expecting to get up each morning at 5:00. Deeming that unacceptable and in efforts to save both time and (gas) money in a very busy week, I elected to spend each night this week in Lexington. I spent one night with my friends Chris & Marina and the following four nights at the home of my aunt Pat & uncle Ken.
Wednesday morning, on my way to class, I was traveling along Tate's Creek Road, preparing to turn on to New Circle Road (aka Circle 4). The light in the turning lane was red and I thought it a relatively decent plan to slow down and eventually stop for the red light. That plan worked out perfectly well. Unfortunatley not all of the individuals behind me implemented the same plan of action. In fact the car immediately behind me, rather than stopping, or even slowing down, decided his time would be much better spent answering his (brand new) iphone.
As you might have guessed, my stopping and his not stopping did not end in the most convienent of results. In fact, the result was down-right, dis-satisfying. He rammed is Dodge Durango right into my Subaru Outback. I didn't realize he was going to hit me, but when my head moved forward on my soldiers at about 25 miles an hour, it was a strong indication that something was amiss.
I got out checked the damage and we agreed to drive up to Nicholasville Road where we could park and exchange information. We were blocking traffic where we were and cars were already begining to lose patience and hong.
As I pulled out, I made it through the light and he did not. Thereafter, I wasn't sure he was following me. I prayed that he did in fact show up to give me his information. Thankfully, he did. In route to the new location, I called for the police so that a report could be filed. It took the police more han 50 minutes to arrive at the location. Fortunately, no one was bleeding to death.
The delay in the police arrival was problematic for a number of reasons. First, I Dale (the iphone answering, Dodge driving, geberally amicable man) had to be at work at 7:00, the Accident was at 6:53am. I was supposed to pick up Ben (my fellow Asburian) between 7:00 and 7:15, the Accident was at 6:53am. and we were suppose to be in class at 8:00. Also, it was 11 degrees farenheit outside.
The policeman arrived at 7:51. His collection of information and filing of reports took another 20 minutes and I arrived at Ben's house at 8:15. It took another 30 minutes to drive to Wilmore and get to class. I contacted Ben after the crash and he inturn contacted the professor, so when we arrived, they knew what had happened. We walked into class to joyous clapping and good cheer that we had arrived safely.
The rest of the day, I was mildly sore, but otherwise fine. Upon wakening Thursday morning, I was very sore and stiff. My neck and sholders ached. I thought for sure I must have whiplash. I took Alieve throughout the day and relaxed with a heat pad during the evening. I am still using Alieve, but, I'm feeling much, much better today. Not to say I won't use the heat pads tonight.
The car is certainly drivable and soon will be repaired; his insurance (thank the Lord he has isurance) should pay for everything.
Thanks for reading and watch out for redlights.
In order to get there in a timely manner, I was expecting to get up each morning at 5:00. Deeming that unacceptable and in efforts to save both time and (gas) money in a very busy week, I elected to spend each night this week in Lexington. I spent one night with my friends Chris & Marina and the following four nights at the home of my aunt Pat & uncle Ken.
Wednesday morning, on my way to class, I was traveling along Tate's Creek Road, preparing to turn on to New Circle Road (aka Circle 4). The light in the turning lane was red and I thought it a relatively decent plan to slow down and eventually stop for the red light. That plan worked out perfectly well. Unfortunatley not all of the individuals behind me implemented the same plan of action. In fact the car immediately behind me, rather than stopping, or even slowing down, decided his time would be much better spent answering his (brand new) iphone.
As you might have guessed, my stopping and his not stopping did not end in the most convienent of results. In fact, the result was down-right, dis-satisfying. He rammed is Dodge Durango right into my Subaru Outback. I didn't realize he was going to hit me, but when my head moved forward on my soldiers at about 25 miles an hour, it was a strong indication that something was amiss.
I got out checked the damage and we agreed to drive up to Nicholasville Road where we could park and exchange information. We were blocking traffic where we were and cars were already begining to lose patience and hong.
As I pulled out, I made it through the light and he did not. Thereafter, I wasn't sure he was following me. I prayed that he did in fact show up to give me his information. Thankfully, he did. In route to the new location, I called for the police so that a report could be filed. It took the police more han 50 minutes to arrive at the location. Fortunately, no one was bleeding to death.
The delay in the police arrival was problematic for a number of reasons. First, I Dale (the iphone answering, Dodge driving, geberally amicable man) had to be at work at 7:00, the Accident was at 6:53am. I was supposed to pick up Ben (my fellow Asburian) between 7:00 and 7:15, the Accident was at 6:53am. and we were suppose to be in class at 8:00. Also, it was 11 degrees farenheit outside.
The policeman arrived at 7:51. His collection of information and filing of reports took another 20 minutes and I arrived at Ben's house at 8:15. It took another 30 minutes to drive to Wilmore and get to class. I contacted Ben after the crash and he inturn contacted the professor, so when we arrived, they knew what had happened. We walked into class to joyous clapping and good cheer that we had arrived safely.
The rest of the day, I was mildly sore, but otherwise fine. Upon wakening Thursday morning, I was very sore and stiff. My neck and sholders ached. I thought for sure I must have whiplash. I took Alieve throughout the day and relaxed with a heat pad during the evening. I am still using Alieve, but, I'm feeling much, much better today. Not to say I won't use the heat pads tonight.
The car is certainly drivable and soon will be repaired; his insurance (thank the Lord he has isurance) should pay for everything.
Thanks for reading and watch out for redlights.
A story perhaps worth reading (The digital camera)
Laurie & I recently purchased a digital camera from an online distributor. After a couple of days, though no fault of our own, the camera ceased functioning. We had already recycled the packaging which was required to return. We returned it anyway.
They sent us a the following message.
Dear Valued Customer,
Thanks again for shopping at Name-of-vendor.com.
We recently received your RMA, and your return was then sent to our Inspections Department for closer examination. We regret to inform you that the accessories that were included with this particular item were not returned.
We only received the (DC KODAK|EASYSHARE C913 SL RT)
Here is what we are missing:
Incomplete return
All items returned to Name of Vendor must be received in their entirety 100% complete to process RMA, item cannot be processed as received.
Return is missing: the retail box.
I sent them the following reply:
To Whom it May Concern,
Regarding your message about RMA#xxxxxx
You addressed you email to "Dear Valued Customer." I'm a first time customer and must say I am not feeling very valued. I hope my family was not wrong for referring me to your website. It is very disappointing to have purchased a camera expecting it to work, to have returned it, only to learn that I can not be helped because I have already recycled the container the item came in.
I understand that there was no original box. The reason that we had no box was that we purchased your product under the assumption that your business was selling me quality merchandise and therefore, I would not need to hold on to unnecessary packaging. For the first few days, the product seemed to be working appropriately (consequently, I believed the box was thereafter unimportant) and then all-of-a-sudden, out-of-nowhere, when I least expect it, yet most desired to take a picture, the camera stopped working appropriately. Meanwhile, we recycled the packaging, which up until that point, I assume would have still worked for its original purpose. I did however, return the camera in a box, just not the original box.
If a box is so terribly important, you can replace the item with a new one and keep the box from the new product. I don't have much need for the box, just the camera. In fact, I was not even aware I was paying for the box, or I would have asked you to keep that from the start, as I could use the money saved more readily than the box. As for the box I sent you, feel free to keep at no extra charge, or recycle it, or if it works for you, send the replacement camera to me in it.
Of course, I would appreciate it if you could pay the shipping back to me as I already paid to send it back to you and further still have conveniently missed all of the holiday picture taking opportunities because of the malfunctioning camera, which incidentally, your business has kept in some store room for over a week.
If none of this seems to work for you, then could you repair the camera I had (at no charge to me) and return it, in any kind of box that will transport it safely to me in proper working condition. I'm really not picky, I just assume when I spend a lot of money on a camera that it will actually work. I'd really like a functioning camera, they make better pictures that way.
Thank you for your cooperation and timely response.
Sincerely,
Joe White
They sent me: first, a email saying they would fix it and then, a new camera, complete with retail packaging.
They sent us a the following message.
Dear Valued Customer,
Thanks again for shopping at Name-of-vendor.com.
We recently received your RMA, and your return was then sent to our Inspections Department for closer examination. We regret to inform you that the accessories that were included with this particular item were not returned.
We only received the (DC KODAK|EASYSHARE C913 SL RT)
Here is what we are missing:
Incomplete return
All items returned to Name of Vendor must be received in their entirety 100% complete to process RMA, item cannot be processed as received.
Return is missing: the retail box.
I sent them the following reply:
To Whom it May Concern,
Regarding your message about RMA#xxxxxx
You addressed you email to "Dear Valued Customer." I'm a first time customer and must say I am not feeling very valued. I hope my family was not wrong for referring me to your website. It is very disappointing to have purchased a camera expecting it to work, to have returned it, only to learn that I can not be helped because I have already recycled the container the item came in.
I understand that there was no original box. The reason that we had no box was that we purchased your product under the assumption that your business was selling me quality merchandise and therefore, I would not need to hold on to unnecessary packaging. For the first few days, the product seemed to be working appropriately (consequently, I believed the box was thereafter unimportant) and then all-of-a-sudden, out-of-nowhere, when I least expect it, yet most desired to take a picture, the camera stopped working appropriately. Meanwhile, we recycled the packaging, which up until that point, I assume would have still worked for its original purpose. I did however, return the camera in a box, just not the original box.
If a box is so terribly important, you can replace the item with a new one and keep the box from the new product. I don't have much need for the box, just the camera. In fact, I was not even aware I was paying for the box, or I would have asked you to keep that from the start, as I could use the money saved more readily than the box. As for the box I sent you, feel free to keep at no extra charge, or recycle it, or if it works for you, send the replacement camera to me in it.
Of course, I would appreciate it if you could pay the shipping back to me as I already paid to send it back to you and further still have conveniently missed all of the holiday picture taking opportunities because of the malfunctioning camera, which incidentally, your business has kept in some store room for over a week.
If none of this seems to work for you, then could you repair the camera I had (at no charge to me) and return it, in any kind of box that will transport it safely to me in proper working condition. I'm really not picky, I just assume when I spend a lot of money on a camera that it will actually work. I'd really like a functioning camera, they make better pictures that way.
Thank you for your cooperation and timely response.
Sincerely,
Joe White
They sent me: first, a email saying they would fix it and then, a new camera, complete with retail packaging.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Dual Citizenship
I have been contemplating dual citizenship, that is the role of Christians as citizens of some or another particular nation while being simultaneously citizens of God's Kingdom. Some would argue that we are not dual citizens, that we are Kingdom citizens and aliens in a strange land. There is much scripture to back that up. Not the least of which is a call to be in the world but not of it, which is not a command, but an implied position (John 17:9-19) .
However, I would argue that being in it means recognizing that we exist within of a particular nation. I also don't think that scripture tells us that being in any one nation or supporting it is bad, so long as doing so does not conflict with the ideals of the Kingdom or better stated, the will of God. I believe that when the two come in conflict, Christians have to side with God. Otherwise, you have made the nation your god, and the real, live, actual God has previously expressed His opinions regarding idolatry.
Is there a scriptural reference that specifically says we are citizens of both? I think there is, but haven't found one. I don't mean text that say submit to human institutions or honor and respect Emperors or anything of that nature, like Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, but am looking for something that specifically mentions being citizens of a nation and what that entails as a Christian.
I ask because there is a plethora of the other, scripture saying we are strangers, exiles, sojourners, aliens in a foreign land, etc. (Ephesians 2:19, Hebrews 11:13, 1 Peter 2:11)
In a recent Youtube video I watched, titled John Piper's heart in the 2008 elections, Piper says we are dual citizens, but I couldn't help wonder what he based that on.
Some other commentary I found on the subject comes from a pastor's blog, Mike's Musings and from a Jim Wallis&Friends/Sojourners Blog by Rich Nathan.
The word we translate as world throughout the New Testament is "kosmou" the same Greek root from which we get cosmos. In the NT, we read that Satan controls the "kosmou" ( John 12:31, 16:11 and 1 John 5:19) but that we are to be in the world (John 17:9-19) while conforming ourselves, and our minds, to that of Jesus Christ (Romans 12:2). So, where does this fit into our political context?
If you have thought about any of this, please post them.
However, I would argue that being in it means recognizing that we exist within of a particular nation. I also don't think that scripture tells us that being in any one nation or supporting it is bad, so long as doing so does not conflict with the ideals of the Kingdom or better stated, the will of God. I believe that when the two come in conflict, Christians have to side with God. Otherwise, you have made the nation your god, and the real, live, actual God has previously expressed His opinions regarding idolatry.
Is there a scriptural reference that specifically says we are citizens of both? I think there is, but haven't found one. I don't mean text that say submit to human institutions or honor and respect Emperors or anything of that nature, like Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, but am looking for something that specifically mentions being citizens of a nation and what that entails as a Christian.
I ask because there is a plethora of the other, scripture saying we are strangers, exiles, sojourners, aliens in a foreign land, etc. (Ephesians 2:19, Hebrews 11:13, 1 Peter 2:11)
In a recent Youtube video I watched, titled John Piper's heart in the 2008 elections, Piper says we are dual citizens, but I couldn't help wonder what he based that on.
Some other commentary I found on the subject comes from a pastor's blog, Mike's Musings and from a Jim Wallis&Friends/Sojourners Blog by Rich Nathan.
The word we translate as world throughout the New Testament is "kosmou" the same Greek root from which we get cosmos. In the NT, we read that Satan controls the "kosmou" ( John 12:31, 16:11 and 1 John 5:19) but that we are to be in the world (John 17:9-19) while conforming ourselves, and our minds, to that of Jesus Christ (Romans 12:2). So, where does this fit into our political context?
If you have thought about any of this, please post them.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Shane Claiborne at Asbury
Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical and Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals came to both the Asbury College and Seminary campuses today. While at the seminary, he spoke at our chapel service and then joined a panel of others from a simple way and communality for a Q/A session. Laurie drove up to join me in these events.
He was very interesting and his teachings were scripturally based. His points were in favor of Kingdom over against Empire. He was well spoken and, by and large, right, I think.
The content of his presentation was not extremely different from my last post, especially in regards to abortion and gays. Nor was the bulk of his message terribly different from what I studied in IS501 - Kingdom, Church, and World. Thanks Ruthanne. Incidentally, I still highly recommend Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire and Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony texts from that class.
One observation of Shane's comments that I would like to bring to light is that he did not say anything about not being involved in the political system. He did mention that he would not publicly endorse a candidate. His candidate is Jesus. However, he also said that he intends to use the system to promote his agenda, bringing about the Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven. He says that he will study the word and support whoever brings us closer to that goal. Which does not seem to me contradictory to 1 Peter 2:13-17.
1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Although Shane did mention building kingdom, he did not mention Empire much at all, except in the litany/prayer (Download Litany Here). The main thing he said about our lives in regard to the Empire was that we should place God first, and ourself, our people, and our nation somewhere on down the line. I wouldn't argue against that. Even the pledge of allegiance says 'one nation under God.'
He said when surveyed the typical person will describe a Christian as: 1. Anti-gay, 2. judgmental, and 3. Hypocritical. To me, this is not too hard to believe. He continued the conversation with the scripture from Matthew when John the Baptist send his disciples to Jesus to ask if Jesus was 'the One' or should we look for another. Jesus does not give a simple yes or no answer. He says look at my life and you tell me what you see. the lame walk, the blind see, etc. What do you think? Shane then continued stating the same should be said of Christians. If someone asks you if you are a Christian, they should be able to look at your life and know the answer. Anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical is a an image problem. It means that we are in fact not acting very much like Christ. His point, love your neighbor, build the kingdom.
In the talk back (ATS's term for Q&A session) he mentioned more in regard to Empire, but the time was full of pregnant pauses and answer that were incomplete to the question.
Shane spoke about the use of the term authorities in Romans 13:1-3 as compared to its use in Ephesians 6:12, noting the same authorship, but did not draw any conclusion, explain, or exegete. Shane did offer a resource for further study; Appendix 3 is from Jesus for President and explains what Shane was attempting to convey. I probably need to take a look at that myself for further consideration. Especially in regard to first Peter, which I have studied in depth.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
He was very interesting and his teachings were scripturally based. His points were in favor of Kingdom over against Empire. He was well spoken and, by and large, right, I think.
The content of his presentation was not extremely different from my last post, especially in regards to abortion and gays. Nor was the bulk of his message terribly different from what I studied in IS501 - Kingdom, Church, and World. Thanks Ruthanne. Incidentally, I still highly recommend Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire and Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony texts from that class.
One observation of Shane's comments that I would like to bring to light is that he did not say anything about not being involved in the political system. He did mention that he would not publicly endorse a candidate. His candidate is Jesus. However, he also said that he intends to use the system to promote his agenda, bringing about the Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven. He says that he will study the word and support whoever brings us closer to that goal. Which does not seem to me contradictory to 1 Peter 2:13-17.
1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Although Shane did mention building kingdom, he did not mention Empire much at all, except in the litany/prayer (Download Litany Here). The main thing he said about our lives in regard to the Empire was that we should place God first, and ourself, our people, and our nation somewhere on down the line. I wouldn't argue against that. Even the pledge of allegiance says 'one nation under God.'
He said when surveyed the typical person will describe a Christian as: 1. Anti-gay, 2. judgmental, and 3. Hypocritical. To me, this is not too hard to believe. He continued the conversation with the scripture from Matthew when John the Baptist send his disciples to Jesus to ask if Jesus was 'the One' or should we look for another. Jesus does not give a simple yes or no answer. He says look at my life and you tell me what you see. the lame walk, the blind see, etc. What do you think? Shane then continued stating the same should be said of Christians. If someone asks you if you are a Christian, they should be able to look at your life and know the answer. Anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical is a an image problem. It means that we are in fact not acting very much like Christ. His point, love your neighbor, build the kingdom.
In the talk back (ATS's term for Q&A session) he mentioned more in regard to Empire, but the time was full of pregnant pauses and answer that were incomplete to the question.
Shane spoke about the use of the term authorities in Romans 13:1-3 as compared to its use in Ephesians 6:12, noting the same authorship, but did not draw any conclusion, explain, or exegete. Shane did offer a resource for further study; Appendix 3 is from Jesus for President and explains what Shane was attempting to convey. I probably need to take a look at that myself for further consideration. Especially in regard to first Peter, which I have studied in depth.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Election Day
Today is election day; for better or for worse, the people of the United States will determine who will 'serve' as the next President. It is a historic day not only in that we will be determining the President but especially because, regardless of the results, we will either have the nation's first African-American President or its first female vice-President.
There has been a lot of turmoil in my extended family regarding this particular election. All of the involved parties are deeply devoted Christians and each are convinced that their decision best reflects their faith. The trouble is among these decisions are such diverse options as abstinence from voting, writing in YHWH (Another one of my relatives who has decided not to vote has considered, if not seriously, writing in Jesus of Nazareth), and as might be expected, supporters of both main party candidates.
The truth of the matter is, there is no best answer. There is a book by Jim Wallis, which I admittedly have not read, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get It. I know that you can't judge a book by the cover, but the title alone reveals to me a great truth. You have likely heard it said that God is neither a Republican nor Democrat. This is a truism. Neither side has all the right answers. Why? Because we are not a Christian nation and our politics do not reflect Christian beliefs. At best, we are Christian who attempt to make our faith known in our political choices, in order to fulfill His will. At worst, we are apathetic in all concerns. Support of either party neglects important aspects of Christianity that the other party addresses more adequately.
Most Americans that identify themselves as Christians are staunchly American and nominally Christians, at best. Most Christians have no idea what it means to live a life modeled on Christ. Most have no idea what it means to love God with everything they've got and to love their neighbors. In fact, most of the church think the best way to love their neighbors is to allow the government to take care of it for them. They consider paying taxes and the nation's ability to help the disadvantage as their Christian contribution to the embodiment Mathew 25:31-46.
While one side is typically concerned with Family values, the other is concerned with saving the earth. While one side is concerned with life & abortion the other is concerned with life & capitol punishment. Yet, all life is sacred to God. How is our love of God expressed in these situations.
People are wrapped up in issues like gay marriage and civil unions. Some say that any such thing is an abomination. Others say that it is a crime to deny these couples family insurance and survival benefits, etc. The bottom line is how are we loving them?
If Jesus hung out with prostitutes and sinners, who would he hang out with if he were born 1975 years later?
Besides gay marriage never destroyed a family. The number one leading cause for divorce in the United States is debt. Families struggle to make ends meet and cover their bills. The related stress breaks up the family. You want to solve the issue of family values, help American get out of debt. The second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, which, incidentally, the bible includes as a sexual sin.
While some Americans think abortion, regardless of reason is wrong, most Americans agree that it, at the minimum, should not be used as a convenience, as a birth control. Regardless on your stance on abortion, most women who get abortions do so because they feel it is their only option. If the church was as loving, open, supportive, and forgiving as it is called to be; those women would feel like they had a choice. Sometimes, however, those women are ostracized by their 'Christian' family members for having premarital sex. The family is worried about its reputation in the church because the church tends to be so judgmental and unforgiving. Why is that? We are a forgiven people for goodness sake!
There are many other issues that are neither right nor wrong, neither right nor left. I have only touched on a few. One problem with our system is that so many Americans will vote today, to select who will represent their views, and then forget about it until the next election. How many are actually expressing their views to their elected officials. How can they represent what you stand for if you do not tell them for what you stand? How often does the minority opinion become public policy simply because that opinion is the one vocalized? Share your opinion, write your elected officials and tell them what you think. But be polite and speak the truth IN LOVE.
I can't tell you how to vote and would dare to try to do so. It is a struggle to attempt to determine how any one person, particularly one driven by political agendas, would represent any other persons faith and moral beliefs. I would encourage your participation in the system. I wold encourage you to have an informed opinion and make a decision. And if you abstain for voting in order to vote of n0-confidence, or as a vote against the system, or in the opinion that your voice is not represented, I understand.
I have already voted today. As for my opinion on not voting, I would prefer you (particularly & in general) vote for Jesus of Nazareth than not at all.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
There has been a lot of turmoil in my extended family regarding this particular election. All of the involved parties are deeply devoted Christians and each are convinced that their decision best reflects their faith. The trouble is among these decisions are such diverse options as abstinence from voting, writing in YHWH (Another one of my relatives who has decided not to vote has considered, if not seriously, writing in Jesus of Nazareth), and as might be expected, supporters of both main party candidates.
The truth of the matter is, there is no best answer. There is a book by Jim Wallis, which I admittedly have not read, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get It. I know that you can't judge a book by the cover, but the title alone reveals to me a great truth. You have likely heard it said that God is neither a Republican nor Democrat. This is a truism. Neither side has all the right answers. Why? Because we are not a Christian nation and our politics do not reflect Christian beliefs. At best, we are Christian who attempt to make our faith known in our political choices, in order to fulfill His will. At worst, we are apathetic in all concerns. Support of either party neglects important aspects of Christianity that the other party addresses more adequately.
Most Americans that identify themselves as Christians are staunchly American and nominally Christians, at best. Most Christians have no idea what it means to live a life modeled on Christ. Most have no idea what it means to love God with everything they've got and to love their neighbors. In fact, most of the church think the best way to love their neighbors is to allow the government to take care of it for them. They consider paying taxes and the nation's ability to help the disadvantage as their Christian contribution to the embodiment Mathew 25:31-46.
While one side is typically concerned with Family values, the other is concerned with saving the earth. While one side is concerned with life & abortion the other is concerned with life & capitol punishment. Yet, all life is sacred to God. How is our love of God expressed in these situations.
People are wrapped up in issues like gay marriage and civil unions. Some say that any such thing is an abomination. Others say that it is a crime to deny these couples family insurance and survival benefits, etc. The bottom line is how are we loving them?
If Jesus hung out with prostitutes and sinners, who would he hang out with if he were born 1975 years later?
Besides gay marriage never destroyed a family. The number one leading cause for divorce in the United States is debt. Families struggle to make ends meet and cover their bills. The related stress breaks up the family. You want to solve the issue of family values, help American get out of debt. The second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, which, incidentally, the bible includes as a sexual sin.
While some Americans think abortion, regardless of reason is wrong, most Americans agree that it, at the minimum, should not be used as a convenience, as a birth control. Regardless on your stance on abortion, most women who get abortions do so because they feel it is their only option. If the church was as loving, open, supportive, and forgiving as it is called to be; those women would feel like they had a choice. Sometimes, however, those women are ostracized by their 'Christian' family members for having premarital sex. The family is worried about its reputation in the church because the church tends to be so judgmental and unforgiving. Why is that? We are a forgiven people for goodness sake!
There are many other issues that are neither right nor wrong, neither right nor left. I have only touched on a few. One problem with our system is that so many Americans will vote today, to select who will represent their views, and then forget about it until the next election. How many are actually expressing their views to their elected officials. How can they represent what you stand for if you do not tell them for what you stand? How often does the minority opinion become public policy simply because that opinion is the one vocalized? Share your opinion, write your elected officials and tell them what you think. But be polite and speak the truth IN LOVE.
I can't tell you how to vote and would dare to try to do so. It is a struggle to attempt to determine how any one person, particularly one driven by political agendas, would represent any other persons faith and moral beliefs. I would encourage your participation in the system. I wold encourage you to have an informed opinion and make a decision. And if you abstain for voting in order to vote of n0-confidence, or as a vote against the system, or in the opinion that your voice is not represented, I understand.
I have already voted today. As for my opinion on not voting, I would prefer you (particularly & in general) vote for Jesus of Nazareth than not at all.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Muhammed's Allah the Father of Jesus?
Below is my answer to the question Is Mohammed’s Allah the Father of Jesus posed on page 25 of Timothy Tennant's text "Theology in the Context of World Christianity." This was an assignment for Basic Christian Doctrine with Steve Seamands
There exist reasons to believe that they are the same. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all reference God in monotheistic terms, describing their God as a sole, supreme being. Only one Supreme Being can exist; to identify multiple Supreme Beings is a contradiction (31-32). In this respect, yes, Christians and Muslim are worshiping the same God, “THE God.” However, what they each understand about their God is contradictory and therefore the topic is debatable. Additionally, the term Allah has been contextualized to the point that it refers specifically to the god of Islam (45-46).
Whereas, Muslims accept much of Christian scripture, they obviously see that Allah is the equivalent to God. However, in that they alter Christian teachings, they have determined that Christianity and Judaism have corrupted the text (34). They believe that we worship the same God, but that Christians have some of the details wrong.
Each religion sees God based on particular revelation that is important to their faith and might identify their God (or Allah) as the same figure, yet corrupted. The ‘truth’ regarding those figures is very different; Muslims see Christians as mistaken on some key points and the Christians see Muslims as either, at worst, inventing a religion or, at best, following a questionable prophet (41-42).
It really boils down to a debate about the Character of God, what each faith believes true of God, for example, the divinity and purpose of Christ. Because in Christianity this is essential, it is impossible to reconcile the two religions as to belief in the same deity. Although, it is true that no one worships the same God (33), the divinity and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is so imperative to Christianity, that without it the entire religion and, consequently, the character of God is lost. So, although God and Allah can mean the same thing, although you could even possibly argue that God and Allah are the same deity, Jesus is not the Son of Muhammad’s Allah.
There exist reasons to believe that they are the same. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all reference God in monotheistic terms, describing their God as a sole, supreme being. Only one Supreme Being can exist; to identify multiple Supreme Beings is a contradiction (31-32). In this respect, yes, Christians and Muslim are worshiping the same God, “THE God.” However, what they each understand about their God is contradictory and therefore the topic is debatable. Additionally, the term Allah has been contextualized to the point that it refers specifically to the god of Islam (45-46).
Whereas, Muslims accept much of Christian scripture, they obviously see that Allah is the equivalent to God. However, in that they alter Christian teachings, they have determined that Christianity and Judaism have corrupted the text (34). They believe that we worship the same God, but that Christians have some of the details wrong.
Each religion sees God based on particular revelation that is important to their faith and might identify their God (or Allah) as the same figure, yet corrupted. The ‘truth’ regarding those figures is very different; Muslims see Christians as mistaken on some key points and the Christians see Muslims as either, at worst, inventing a religion or, at best, following a questionable prophet (41-42).
It really boils down to a debate about the Character of God, what each faith believes true of God, for example, the divinity and purpose of Christ. Because in Christianity this is essential, it is impossible to reconcile the two religions as to belief in the same deity. Although, it is true that no one worships the same God (33), the divinity and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is so imperative to Christianity, that without it the entire religion and, consequently, the character of God is lost. So, although God and Allah can mean the same thing, although you could even possibly argue that God and Allah are the same deity, Jesus is not the Son of Muhammad’s Allah.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
God, Eternal or Everlasting
This is the paper I wrote for Dr. Okello's Philosophy Class regarding the everlasting and eternality of God. Feel free to disagree. I'm not totally sold on my own opinion. Also, be aware, it's a bit long.
Is God Eternal or Everlasting? I affirm God as Everlasting.
Suppose God were eternal; God exists outside of time. Rather than existing moment by moment as humans do, He experiences the entirety of history all at once, in one complete concurrent now (R&RB, 83). By this view, God has no past, present, or future; He simply is (R&RB, 83). If this is the case, it would easily explain how God can be omniscient. He simply sees what is happening as it happens and consequently has all-encompassing knowledge. Now, suppose God is everlasting; God exists within time; our present is His present. Although this might prevent God from knowing a detailed future, it does not
preclude him from knowing some of the future. Also, it explains some otherwise troubling scripture regarding God changing his mind.
Both perspectives can be argued from biblical references. Eternality is supported by scriptures such as Isaiah 46:9 & 10, “… I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” God also says He knows the plans He has for us, plans for good and not for harm. Plans that give us hope for the future (Jeremiah 29:11). In first Peter, we are told Christ was destined before the foundation of the world. God knowing our plans for the future and being able to declare the end from the beginning are indicators that God has some knowledge of the future, possibly indicating God’s eternality.
Besides these broad scope indicators, scripture contains specific detailed accounts regarding God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times before morning, Judas was going to betray him, the religious leaders would seek his death, and He would rise from death in three days. These factors support an eternal God.
Alternatively, instances where God appears to not know the future support God existing within time. Examples include Number 14:11, “ The LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” and 1 Kings 22:20, “the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” among many others.
The authors of biblical texts do not describe God as a bystander; rather, God is actively engaged with man and history (P of R, 159). In order for God to be involved in human history, he must be able to adapt (P of R, 159). Within scripture there exist numerous examples of God changing his mind (1 Sam 15:11, 35, Exo 32:14, Deut 9:13-14, 18-20), asking questions, expressing surprise or disappointment (Jer 3:5-8, 19-20, 7:31, 19:5, 32:35), and predicting, rather than knowing, what might happen ( Ezek 12:3, Exodus 3:18-4:9) (Boyd & Eddy, 44). Further, scripture mentions God testing his people to determine what they will do (Gen 22:12, Deut 8:2, 13:3, Judges 3:4, 2 Chron 32:31) (Boyd & Eddy, 45). Each instance indicates God not exhaustively knowing the future.
Theses occurrences cannot happen if God has all-encompassing knowledge of future events. God can not simultaneously know the whole future and not know the whole future, therefore God cannot be eternal. In Genesis 6:6, we learn that God regretted creating man and grieved. If God were eternal, he would have known prior to creation the human race would fail and it would be illogical for him to grieve or regret. However, He likely would not have made man.
Although scripture indicates that God knows future happenings, I found no scripture expressly stating God exhaustively knows the future. Nor have I seen any scripture which explicitly affirms that God exists outside of time or that God simultaneously sees past, present, and future.
Those who determine God to be eternal can argue scripture is speaking anthropomorphically or metaphorically of God when identifying God as changing his mind, expressing disappointment and surprise, or testing his people to see what they will do. However, none of these statements appear to be so. They do not state the circumstances were as if God changed his mind, or it was as though God was disappointed (Boyd and Eddy, 47).
“If these statements were not meant to be taken in a straightforward manner, what would passages that did teach this in a straightforward manner say? If God cannot convince us by explicitly saying he can and does change his mind, experience regret, and so on, how could he convince us if he wanted to?
" … The passages cited in support of the open view [everlasting] do not readily lend themselves to an anthropomorphic interpretation. As with all figures of speech, anthropomorphisms must connect with reality at some point if they are to communicate anything truthful. Expressions such as “the right hand of God” or “the eyes of the Lord” for example, communicate something truthful about God’s strength and knowledge. But what does the concept of God changing his mind communicate if it is indeed merely anthropomorphism? If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does so does not communicate anything truthful: It is simply inaccurate." (Boyd and Eddy, 48)
In fact, if scripture were to identify God as changing his mind, when he does not, scripture would, in effect, make a liar of God, which is opposed to the character of God. For example, if we are told God changes his decision to destroy the Israelites because of Moses’ forty day and night prayerful intervention (Isaiah 46:9-10), either God lied saying He would destroy the people or scripture lied regarding God’s ability to and practice of changing his mind. If God knew all along (Eternality) that he would change his mind after Moses prayed, then he lied when saying he was going to destroy them. If he did not know he would change his mind, then he does not exhaustibly know the future and is therefore not outside of time (eternal). If however, God actually did change his mind, God is truthful, scripture is truthful, and God is everlasting.
Everlasting makes sense of scriptures about God asking non-rhetorical questions or God changing his mind. But it also seemingly limits the abilities of God in that he doesn't "know" every detail of what will eventually happen. This is an illogical argument. Even if God does not know every detail of every future happening, His omniscience is not lessened. Not exhaustively knowing the future does not preclude God knowing everything available to know at any given time. If God were to exist within time, he could still readily know everything there is to know. He would know all math, science, history, etc. He would know what is currently happening, both actual physical happenings and the current thoughts of man. He would even know potential ramifications of choices and actions man might take. God as everlasting does not weaken the omniscience of God. Rather it redefines omniscience; He would still know all. What there is to know, however, would be a less exhaustive list than it would be if God exists outside of time, eternally.
In the discussion of an everlasting God, there is still a possibility of critique from those who support an Eternal God regarding key scriptures that expressly identify God as possessing understanding of future events, such Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, Jeremiah 29:11, God knowing his plans for us, the messages of many various prophets regarding the future, and 1 Peter’s description of Jesus as destined before the foundation of the world.
Let us not forget that in Isaiah 46, God also claims His counsel shall stand and that he will accomplish his purpose. Rather than this statement reflecting his foreknowledge, it could be a statement of his power. Although God is everlasting, he is not weakened; His omnipotence stands. God can intervene and interject his purpose as he desires (within the character of God). With his power, he can overrule ordinary happenings, thus shaping the future. For example, he can destine Christ to redeem humanity at the foundation of the world in the event humanity should not meet his desired expectations. This is not to say he knows they will fail to meet expectations, nor that he knows the details surrounding Jesus’ life and crucifixion. It only implies that he has a plan and is willing to implement it should it become necessary for his ultimate intentions to be accomplished.
Whereas God can not be actively involved in human life, nor can he be capable of change as an eternal God, He can as an everlasting God. Further, God as everlasting, lends credibility to scriptures and explains how God can be uncertain about aspects of the future while understanding and proclaiming others and it does so without limiting his power or knowledge.
References:
Boyd, G., & Eddy, P. (2002). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theory. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Hasker, W. (1983). Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2006) Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2008). Reason and Religious Belief:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Is God Eternal or Everlasting? I affirm God as Everlasting.
Suppose God were eternal; God exists outside of time. Rather than existing moment by moment as humans do, He experiences the entirety of history all at once, in one complete concurrent now (R&RB, 83). By this view, God has no past, present, or future; He simply is (R&RB, 83). If this is the case, it would easily explain how God can be omniscient. He simply sees what is happening as it happens and consequently has all-encompassing knowledge. Now, suppose God is everlasting; God exists within time; our present is His present. Although this might prevent God from knowing a detailed future, it does not
preclude him from knowing some of the future. Also, it explains some otherwise troubling scripture regarding God changing his mind.
Both perspectives can be argued from biblical references. Eternality is supported by scriptures such as Isaiah 46:9 & 10, “… I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” God also says He knows the plans He has for us, plans for good and not for harm. Plans that give us hope for the future (Jeremiah 29:11). In first Peter, we are told Christ was destined before the foundation of the world. God knowing our plans for the future and being able to declare the end from the beginning are indicators that God has some knowledge of the future, possibly indicating God’s eternality.
Besides these broad scope indicators, scripture contains specific detailed accounts regarding God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times before morning, Judas was going to betray him, the religious leaders would seek his death, and He would rise from death in three days. These factors support an eternal God.
Alternatively, instances where God appears to not know the future support God existing within time. Examples include Number 14:11, “ The LORD said to Moses, "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” and 1 Kings 22:20, “the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” among many others.
The authors of biblical texts do not describe God as a bystander; rather, God is actively engaged with man and history (P of R, 159). In order for God to be involved in human history, he must be able to adapt (P of R, 159). Within scripture there exist numerous examples of God changing his mind (1 Sam 15:11, 35, Exo 32:14, Deut 9:13-14, 18-20), asking questions, expressing surprise or disappointment (Jer 3:5-8, 19-20, 7:31, 19:5, 32:35), and predicting, rather than knowing, what might happen ( Ezek 12:3, Exodus 3:18-4:9) (Boyd & Eddy, 44). Further, scripture mentions God testing his people to determine what they will do (Gen 22:12, Deut 8:2, 13:3, Judges 3:4, 2 Chron 32:31) (Boyd & Eddy, 45). Each instance indicates God not exhaustively knowing the future.
Theses occurrences cannot happen if God has all-encompassing knowledge of future events. God can not simultaneously know the whole future and not know the whole future, therefore God cannot be eternal. In Genesis 6:6, we learn that God regretted creating man and grieved. If God were eternal, he would have known prior to creation the human race would fail and it would be illogical for him to grieve or regret. However, He likely would not have made man.
Although scripture indicates that God knows future happenings, I found no scripture expressly stating God exhaustively knows the future. Nor have I seen any scripture which explicitly affirms that God exists outside of time or that God simultaneously sees past, present, and future.
Those who determine God to be eternal can argue scripture is speaking anthropomorphically or metaphorically of God when identifying God as changing his mind, expressing disappointment and surprise, or testing his people to see what they will do. However, none of these statements appear to be so. They do not state the circumstances were as if God changed his mind, or it was as though God was disappointed (Boyd and Eddy, 47).
“If these statements were not meant to be taken in a straightforward manner, what would passages that did teach this in a straightforward manner say? If God cannot convince us by explicitly saying he can and does change his mind, experience regret, and so on, how could he convince us if he wanted to?
" … The passages cited in support of the open view [everlasting] do not readily lend themselves to an anthropomorphic interpretation. As with all figures of speech, anthropomorphisms must connect with reality at some point if they are to communicate anything truthful. Expressions such as “the right hand of God” or “the eyes of the Lord” for example, communicate something truthful about God’s strength and knowledge. But what does the concept of God changing his mind communicate if it is indeed merely anthropomorphism? If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does so does not communicate anything truthful: It is simply inaccurate." (Boyd and Eddy, 48)
In fact, if scripture were to identify God as changing his mind, when he does not, scripture would, in effect, make a liar of God, which is opposed to the character of God. For example, if we are told God changes his decision to destroy the Israelites because of Moses’ forty day and night prayerful intervention (Isaiah 46:9-10), either God lied saying He would destroy the people or scripture lied regarding God’s ability to and practice of changing his mind. If God knew all along (Eternality) that he would change his mind after Moses prayed, then he lied when saying he was going to destroy them. If he did not know he would change his mind, then he does not exhaustibly know the future and is therefore not outside of time (eternal). If however, God actually did change his mind, God is truthful, scripture is truthful, and God is everlasting.
Everlasting makes sense of scriptures about God asking non-rhetorical questions or God changing his mind. But it also seemingly limits the abilities of God in that he doesn't "know" every detail of what will eventually happen. This is an illogical argument. Even if God does not know every detail of every future happening, His omniscience is not lessened. Not exhaustively knowing the future does not preclude God knowing everything available to know at any given time. If God were to exist within time, he could still readily know everything there is to know. He would know all math, science, history, etc. He would know what is currently happening, both actual physical happenings and the current thoughts of man. He would even know potential ramifications of choices and actions man might take. God as everlasting does not weaken the omniscience of God. Rather it redefines omniscience; He would still know all. What there is to know, however, would be a less exhaustive list than it would be if God exists outside of time, eternally.
In the discussion of an everlasting God, there is still a possibility of critique from those who support an Eternal God regarding key scriptures that expressly identify God as possessing understanding of future events, such Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, Jeremiah 29:11, God knowing his plans for us, the messages of many various prophets regarding the future, and 1 Peter’s description of Jesus as destined before the foundation of the world.
Let us not forget that in Isaiah 46, God also claims His counsel shall stand and that he will accomplish his purpose. Rather than this statement reflecting his foreknowledge, it could be a statement of his power. Although God is everlasting, he is not weakened; His omnipotence stands. God can intervene and interject his purpose as he desires (within the character of God). With his power, he can overrule ordinary happenings, thus shaping the future. For example, he can destine Christ to redeem humanity at the foundation of the world in the event humanity should not meet his desired expectations. This is not to say he knows they will fail to meet expectations, nor that he knows the details surrounding Jesus’ life and crucifixion. It only implies that he has a plan and is willing to implement it should it become necessary for his ultimate intentions to be accomplished.
Whereas God can not be actively involved in human life, nor can he be capable of change as an eternal God, He can as an everlasting God. Further, God as everlasting, lends credibility to scriptures and explains how God can be uncertain about aspects of the future while understanding and proclaiming others and it does so without limiting his power or knowledge.
References:
Boyd, G., & Eddy, P. (2002). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theory. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Hasker, W. (1983). Metaphysics: Constructing a World View. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2006) Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. 3rd Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Peterson, M., Hasker W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (Eds.) (2008). Reason and Religious Belief:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
