The inseparability of God's Works and Words

The divine revelation that the Old Testament records was conveyed in two principal ways—by mighty works and prophetic words. These two modes of revelation are bound up indissolubly together. The acts of mercy and judgment by which the God of Israel made himself known to his covenant people would not have carried their proper message had they not been interpreted to them by the prophets—the “spokesmen” of God who received and communicated his word. For example, the events of the Exodus would not have acquired their abiding significance for the Israelites if Moses had not told them that in these events the God of their fathers was acting for their deliverance, in accordance with his ancient promises, so that they might be his people and he their God. On the other hand, Moses’ words would have been fruitless apart from their vindication in the events of the Exodus.

F.F. Bruce, New Bible Dictionary, page 138

Three strands to the central message of the Bible

The Bible's central message is the story of salvation, and throughout both testaments three strands in this unfolding story can be distinguished: the bringer of salvation, the way of salvation and the heirs of salvation. This could be reworded in terms of the covenant idea by saying the central message of the Bible is God's covenant with men, and that the strands are the mediator of the covenant, the basis of the covenant, and the covenant people. God himself is the Saviour of His people; it is He who confirms His covenant mercy with them. The bringer of Salvation, the mediator of the covenant is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The way of salvation, the basis of the covenant, is God's grace, calling forth from his people a response of faith and obedience. The heirs of salvation, the covenant people are the Israel of God, the Church of God.  

F.F. Bruce, New Bible Dictionary, Second edition, p. 139. 

The truth about men

Several months ago my son and I watched A Few Good Men, a fictional courtroom drama centred on a case of physical abuse [an illegal code red] within the US military.

To me it highlights the irony that violence and injustice can become endemic to a military which is meant to be protecting its citizens from injustice and violence. Why is that?

Two years ago I asked Who is protecting who? because of revelations of a long history of abuse of cadets within the Australian military.

Here is the climactic scene from the movie. You can't handle the truth. The end justifies the means...

 

Does no one preach on this passage?

Some of the teachings of Jesus are hard to understand. Some are just too hard to hear....

It is interesting that in forty years of attending a range of churches I don't every recall hearing a sermon on the passage below from the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 25) . But, perhaps the passage was preached on and I deliberately forgot... This is no obscure passage. In Mattew's Gospel it is the last, and perhaps culmination, of Jesus teaching.

  ³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left....

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ ⁴⁵ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Blame the Christians!

The "Volfian" reading group is re-convening today to discuss more of Augustine's City of God. We just read Book III. Augustine provides a model and robust critique of the surrounding culture and of his contemporaries' criticism of Christianity. They were blaming Christianity for the fall of Rome and its current suffering. If only the Romans had kept worshipping their own gods. They would have protected them.

Augustine cleverly uses secular authors to show the flaws in these arguments. Rome "suffered" much before Christ. Furthermore, Roman gods were diligently worshipped then and yet Roman citizens experienced considerable natural disasters and atrocities in war. Much of this suffering arose from civil wars and from man's own lust for power and violence. In Augustine's words:

How can our opponents have the effrontery, the audacity, the impudence, the imbecility (or rather the insanity) to refuse to blame their gods for those catastrophes, while they hold Christ responsible for the disasters of modern times?
The brutal civil wars, more bitter, in the admission of their own authors, than any wars against foreign enemies - those civil wars which, in the general judgement, brought on the the republic not merely calamity but utter destruction - broke out long before the coming of Christ.

Book III, Chapter 30,  pages 131 (Penguin edition)

Some reaons why I believe the Gospel of Jesus is true

What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
That he lived, he taught, he died, he rose from the dead, and that he is coming again to judge the world...

Why do I believe it? Why would a well-educated scientist like me believe it is true?

Here are some of the main reasons. I don't think any single reason is particularly persuasive. However, for me when they are put together I find them compelling.

• it transcends culture and background. through every age people with diverse backgrounds  (ethnicity, education, wealth, social status, ...) have had their lives transformed by believing the Gospel is true.
• it transcends time and history. after two thousand years of change (scientific and technological advances, political changes, wars, philosophy, literature, music, ...) it is just as relevant and powerful.
• it transforms societies as well as individuals. whether it is the scientific revolution, the drive to abolish slavery, starting hospitals and schools, overcoming caste, ...
• the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why did the disciples change from confused cowards to confident evangelists who were willing to die for their faith?
• a coherent world view (it describes the nature of humanity, knowledge, ....)
• the Bible answers the question: why does science work? the universe was created by a God who delights in order and truth, and made humans in his image.
• the amazing coherence of the Bible and its beauty as literature.
• the alternatives (atheism, postmodernism, religious liberalism, other religions, ...) are less compelling and raise greater problems and questions.

I would say this is the "rational" basis for my "faith" that the Gospel is true.

How are the New Atheists "fundamentalist"?

"Fundamentalist" is a loaded and mis-understood term. Several earlier posts considered the issue from several angles.
One caricature and criticism is that "fundamentalists" claim that no interpretation of scripture is necessary. There is only one correct reading of scripture, theirs. Anyone who disagrees is being ungodly.

This might be classified as the "no interpretation" interpretation.
In some ways this reminds me of the New Atheist [Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, Lawrence Krauss, ...] interpretation of science.

Science does not need interpretation. There is no need for a philosophy of science. It is "bleedingly obvious" that:

• science is true
• science is the only means to obtain truth
• the only meaninful and important questions are those which science can answer
• science provides a basis for ethics
• science shows the universe has no purpose
• science proves there is no god or creator

Anyone who denies these claims is just being irrational and unscientific and ignoring the evidence.