If everything in the physical universe is the paint (including ourselves, conscious paint) and God is the painter -- science can only study the paint -- it cannot tell us why God made it, or what picture He is painting with it. Religion without God can only guess at why, and philosophy can only analyze the guesses. If we want to find the ultimate Purpose, we must find God, or be receptive to being found.
Where is your focus? Is it in something you can learn about and enjoy forever? If not, how is that working out for you?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
RFG 14: The Dance of God & Epilogue: Where Do We Go from Here?
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 14: The Dance of God / Epilogue
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
FOURTEEN: The Dance of God & Epilogue: Where Do We Go from Here?
Chapter fourteen is essentially about the Trinity as the eternal dance of interpersonal, other-centered love, the sort of love expressed in creation and in Christ’s sacrifice, the sort of love we were made to share in—a dance we are called to join. Self-centeredness is the opposite of a dance… it is a stand-still. We are stationary and others revolve around us. It is hell. God does not need our love, as He is self-sufficient. But He expects our love and is saddened and angered (within eternal happiness) at our self-centeredness when we reject His outpouring of love, because such rejection is harmful to us and others and He wants the best for us. If He weren’t eternally happy, He would be apathetic to our rejection and the harm it causes.
Joining the dance (or returning to it, if the Genesis account is taken literally) is centering our identity on Christ’s sacrificial, eternal love rather than on our own self-centered self-salvation. I want here to offer another take on the Fall, since I find arbitrary rules like “Don’t eat that fruit,” to be unloving, and some would consider “knowledge” (in this case, of good and evil) to be the reason God instructed them not to eat the fruit (Keller says no reason is given). It doesn’t have to be considered an arbitrary rule, and knowledge is not cast in an evil light if the narrative is correctly interpreted, as follows: Good is love, unity with God. There is no good apart from God, and evil is a defect of good, of unity with God. If Adam and Eve had stuck with God, all they would ever have known is good (like spiders know webs and birds know nests). It wasn’t knowledge itself that was bad. Rename it “The Tree of Perceiving Distance between Us” and have God tell them “Do not eat the fruit of that tree, or you shall surely be far away from Me.” They follow the God-and-man-hating snake and walk over there and eat the fruit of that tree, and all the sudden are filled with a terror comparable to a crippling fear of heights, seeing now how far they are from God (the snake snickering as he slithers off slimily into the sickening sunset of symbolism). If God is Good, then a better name for that tree is “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Was perception or knowledge itself the very evil that the snake was drawing them to? Nope, it surely wasn’t. The point wasn’t what the serpent was drawing them to… the point was what he was drawing them away from – only knowing God’s love (true life). That is what they fell away from (into death, separation from God), and what we fall away from every time our focus strays from being centred on God’s love, the dance we are called to return to or join (the original point, whether or not the Genesis narrative is historical). That is the message, the invitation Christ sent with His atoning death and resurrection.
The end (goal) of all this is described briefly on page 223 and fleshed out in the next two pages: “The purpose of Jesus’ coming is to put the whole world right, to renew and restore the creation, not to escape it. It is not just to bring personal forgiveness and peace, but also justice and shalom to the world. God created both body and soul, and the resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going to redeem both body and soul. The work of the Spirit of God is not only to save souls but also to care for and cultivate the face of the earth, the material world,” (bold type added). Keller notes how the Bible is the only source of this unique vision. If (speaking from the perspective of the skeptic) there is a real explanation of why we are here, why anything exists at all, that has anything to do with what is truly good, Keller has shown how other religions (or implicitly religious worldviews) have a different and inadequate view of the world and God and fail to explain satisfactorily why we are here.
*******
The Epilogue challenges the unbeliever, or the self-righteous, to examine their motives for putting faith in God, to take inventory of what is holding them back from putting faith in Christ, and explains how to become a Christian.
Are you using or trusting God? Do you want something from Him, or do you want Him? Are you giving up some of you or all of you? Are you centering some of your life on Him, or all of it? It is an all-or-nothing decision. A mild, half-hearted response fails to understand the full implications of who Christ claimed to be. See: http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2008/01/Jesus-Claims-to-Divinity.html
Keller encourages unbelievers to identify what is holding them back, explore these things with other Christians, and learn more about Jesus, who He is and what He did.
He explains that how one becomes a Christian is by 1) repenting from finding salvation in anything other than God (the essence of sin)… turning away from that, toward 2) putting faith in what God communicated through Christ’s death and resurrection: He loves us no matter what. Keller points out that it is the object of your faith (God) that saves you – whether your faith is weak or strong. Expecting your faith to be strong is another form of self-salvation. Turn from that to God.
Keller encourages us to live out our faith with a band of Christian brothers and sisters, in other-centered community. He gives a strong warning against rejecting God’s grace by looking down on others as if you are better than they are. And he calls us to recognize that when we come to know Christ, it has always been God drawing us to Himself—He is not surprised at our arrival, but has pursued us and brought us to the dance floor.
That is something I know from personal experience, and never could have imagined before He found me. Keller encourages unbelievers to pray for God to find them, but… sometimes He doesn’t wait for you to pray (but the choice is still yours to accept or reject Him). Sometimes He does wait. He knows how best to reach each individual.
“As a final discussion point, talk about how your views have changed as a result of reading ‘The Reason for God.’ If you were skeptical about God when you started reading the book, are you less skeptical today? If you began this discussion as a believer, are you more confident now in what you believe? As you discuss your answers, consider any other areas you might like to explore with members of your reading group.” http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
FOURTEEN: The Dance of God & Epilogue: Where Do We Go from Here?
Chapter fourteen is essentially about the Trinity as the eternal dance of interpersonal, other-centered love, the sort of love expressed in creation and in Christ’s sacrifice, the sort of love we were made to share in—a dance we are called to join. Self-centeredness is the opposite of a dance… it is a stand-still. We are stationary and others revolve around us. It is hell. God does not need our love, as He is self-sufficient. But He expects our love and is saddened and angered (within eternal happiness) at our self-centeredness when we reject His outpouring of love, because such rejection is harmful to us and others and He wants the best for us. If He weren’t eternally happy, He would be apathetic to our rejection and the harm it causes.
Joining the dance (or returning to it, if the Genesis account is taken literally) is centering our identity on Christ’s sacrificial, eternal love rather than on our own self-centered self-salvation. I want here to offer another take on the Fall, since I find arbitrary rules like “Don’t eat that fruit,” to be unloving, and some would consider “knowledge” (in this case, of good and evil) to be the reason God instructed them not to eat the fruit (Keller says no reason is given). It doesn’t have to be considered an arbitrary rule, and knowledge is not cast in an evil light if the narrative is correctly interpreted, as follows: Good is love, unity with God. There is no good apart from God, and evil is a defect of good, of unity with God. If Adam and Eve had stuck with God, all they would ever have known is good (like spiders know webs and birds know nests). It wasn’t knowledge itself that was bad. Rename it “The Tree of Perceiving Distance between Us” and have God tell them “Do not eat the fruit of that tree, or you shall surely be far away from Me.” They follow the God-and-man-hating snake and walk over there and eat the fruit of that tree, and all the sudden are filled with a terror comparable to a crippling fear of heights, seeing now how far they are from God (the snake snickering as he slithers off slimily into the sickening sunset of symbolism). If God is Good, then a better name for that tree is “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Was perception or knowledge itself the very evil that the snake was drawing them to? Nope, it surely wasn’t. The point wasn’t what the serpent was drawing them to… the point was what he was drawing them away from – only knowing God’s love (true life). That is what they fell away from (into death, separation from God), and what we fall away from every time our focus strays from being centred on God’s love, the dance we are called to return to or join (the original point, whether or not the Genesis narrative is historical). That is the message, the invitation Christ sent with His atoning death and resurrection.
The end (goal) of all this is described briefly on page 223 and fleshed out in the next two pages: “The purpose of Jesus’ coming is to put the whole world right, to renew and restore the creation, not to escape it. It is not just to bring personal forgiveness and peace, but also justice and shalom to the world. God created both body and soul, and the resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going to redeem both body and soul. The work of the Spirit of God is not only to save souls but also to care for and cultivate the face of the earth, the material world,” (bold type added). Keller notes how the Bible is the only source of this unique vision. If (speaking from the perspective of the skeptic) there is a real explanation of why we are here, why anything exists at all, that has anything to do with what is truly good, Keller has shown how other religions (or implicitly religious worldviews) have a different and inadequate view of the world and God and fail to explain satisfactorily why we are here.
*******
The Epilogue challenges the unbeliever, or the self-righteous, to examine their motives for putting faith in God, to take inventory of what is holding them back from putting faith in Christ, and explains how to become a Christian.
Are you using or trusting God? Do you want something from Him, or do you want Him? Are you giving up some of you or all of you? Are you centering some of your life on Him, or all of it? It is an all-or-nothing decision. A mild, half-hearted response fails to understand the full implications of who Christ claimed to be. See: http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2008/01/Jesus-Claims-to-Divinity.html
Keller encourages unbelievers to identify what is holding them back, explore these things with other Christians, and learn more about Jesus, who He is and what He did.
He explains that how one becomes a Christian is by 1) repenting from finding salvation in anything other than God (the essence of sin)… turning away from that, toward 2) putting faith in what God communicated through Christ’s death and resurrection: He loves us no matter what. Keller points out that it is the object of your faith (God) that saves you – whether your faith is weak or strong. Expecting your faith to be strong is another form of self-salvation. Turn from that to God.
Keller encourages us to live out our faith with a band of Christian brothers and sisters, in other-centered community. He gives a strong warning against rejecting God’s grace by looking down on others as if you are better than they are. And he calls us to recognize that when we come to know Christ, it has always been God drawing us to Himself—He is not surprised at our arrival, but has pursued us and brought us to the dance floor.
That is something I know from personal experience, and never could have imagined before He found me. Keller encourages unbelievers to pray for God to find them, but… sometimes He doesn’t wait for you to pray (but the choice is still yours to accept or reject Him). Sometimes He does wait. He knows how best to reach each individual.
“As a final discussion point, talk about how your views have changed as a result of reading ‘The Reason for God.’ If you were skeptical about God when you started reading the book, are you less skeptical today? If you began this discussion as a believer, are you more confident now in what you believe? As you discuss your answers, consider any other areas you might like to explore with members of your reading group.” http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
RFG 13: The Reality of the Resurrection
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 13: The Reality of the Resurrection
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
THIRTEEN: The Reality of the Resurrection
I liked the Tolstoy quote which began the chapter: (excerpt) “Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?” (201). And I liked how Keller ended the chapter with “If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there’s infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world,” (212). Because, if His resurrection happened, everything He taught is eternal truth we can discover and must accept, not just something He made up and can be easily dismissed.
Keller says to those who do not believe in the resurrection: “You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church,” (202). Keller provides one such scenario on pages 202-203, then he proceeds to take it apart:
1. The resurrection narratives of the gospels developed later, long after the events themselves.
Answer: “The first accounts of the empty tomb and eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels … but in the letters of Paul, which every historian agrees were written just fifteen to twenty years after the death of Jesus,” (203). Jesus’ bodily resurrection was proclaimed from the very beginning. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. Paul not only refers to the empty tomb and resurrection on the third day (historical account; details not permitted to be changed) – he also lists the eyewitnesses … individuals, small groups, five hundred people at once – most still alive to easily corroborate or kill (safe and easy travel during the pax Romana) the story that remained alive because it was true. The first eyewitnesses were women whose testimony in that culture was not admissible evidence in court—such details of the historical account were too well known to be changed, despite cultural pressure. Further, if there had been no empty tomb, no one would have believed the sightings were of the resurrected Jesus (as opposed to the ghost of Jesus).
2. The body was stolen out of the tomb and gullible ancients believed claims that Jesus had resurrected (“chronological snobbery” – C.S. Lewis).
Answer: In the Greco-Roman culture, resurrection was not only impossible, but totally undesirable. The Gnostic “gospels” appealed to that culture when they spoke of being rescued from the dark, evil material world by secret gnosis, whereas the canonical gospels offended the dominant views with a “positive view of material creation,” (106). Christians acknowledge our bodies as God’s sacred temple, His holy dwelling place—not something to escape, but something to be glorified in resurrection (Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods, Thomas Nelson, 2000). According to Jewish teaching, the resurrection doesn’t happen to one person in the middle of history – it happens to all believers at the end of history. Individual resurrections were not available to the Jewish imagination to write eyewitness testimony off as hallucination, or to write off the empty tomb as resulting from the disciples stealing Jesus’ body in hopes that others would believe He had been resurrected. In addition, “There were dozens of other messianic pretenders whose lives and careers ended the same way Jesus’ did. Why would the disciples of Jesus have come to the conclusion that his crucifixion had not been a defeat but a triumph—unless they had seen him risen from the dead?” (208). In addition, “it was absolute blasphemy to propose that any human being should be worshipped. Yet hundreds of Jews began worshipping Jesus literally overnight. The hymn to Christ as God that Paul quotes in Philippians 2 is generally recognized to have been written just a few years after the crucifixion,” (209-210).
“The Christian view of resurrection, absolutely unprecedented in history, sprang up full-blown immediately after the death of Jesus. There was no process of development. His followers said their beliefs did not come from debating and discussing. They were just telling others what they had seen themselves,” (209). “Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, with such power? No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead—why did this group do so? No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview virtually overnight? How do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their belief?” (210). To bail out by saying that miracle is impossible, is to leave such questions unanswered. (To discuss the possibility of miracles, go here: www.ichthus77.blogspot.com/Signs). People from the first century had just as much reason to be skeptical about an individual resurrecting, yet the church was born and grew because they let the evidence speak for itself.
This is not mentioned in the chapter, but compare John 20:19 and Acts 2:14, and answer this question: what explains the change in Jesus’ disciples, from being full of fear, to being full of boldness?
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
THIRTEEN: The Reality of the Resurrection
I liked the Tolstoy quote which began the chapter: (excerpt) “Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?” (201). And I liked how Keller ended the chapter with “If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there’s infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world,” (212). Because, if His resurrection happened, everything He taught is eternal truth we can discover and must accept, not just something He made up and can be easily dismissed.
Keller says to those who do not believe in the resurrection: “You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church,” (202). Keller provides one such scenario on pages 202-203, then he proceeds to take it apart:
1. The resurrection narratives of the gospels developed later, long after the events themselves.
Answer: “The first accounts of the empty tomb and eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels … but in the letters of Paul, which every historian agrees were written just fifteen to twenty years after the death of Jesus,” (203). Jesus’ bodily resurrection was proclaimed from the very beginning. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. Paul not only refers to the empty tomb and resurrection on the third day (historical account; details not permitted to be changed) – he also lists the eyewitnesses … individuals, small groups, five hundred people at once – most still alive to easily corroborate or kill (safe and easy travel during the pax Romana) the story that remained alive because it was true. The first eyewitnesses were women whose testimony in that culture was not admissible evidence in court—such details of the historical account were too well known to be changed, despite cultural pressure. Further, if there had been no empty tomb, no one would have believed the sightings were of the resurrected Jesus (as opposed to the ghost of Jesus).
2. The body was stolen out of the tomb and gullible ancients believed claims that Jesus had resurrected (“chronological snobbery” – C.S. Lewis).
Answer: In the Greco-Roman culture, resurrection was not only impossible, but totally undesirable. The Gnostic “gospels” appealed to that culture when they spoke of being rescued from the dark, evil material world by secret gnosis, whereas the canonical gospels offended the dominant views with a “positive view of material creation,” (106). Christians acknowledge our bodies as God’s sacred temple, His holy dwelling place—not something to escape, but something to be glorified in resurrection (Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods, Thomas Nelson, 2000). According to Jewish teaching, the resurrection doesn’t happen to one person in the middle of history – it happens to all believers at the end of history. Individual resurrections were not available to the Jewish imagination to write eyewitness testimony off as hallucination, or to write off the empty tomb as resulting from the disciples stealing Jesus’ body in hopes that others would believe He had been resurrected. In addition, “There were dozens of other messianic pretenders whose lives and careers ended the same way Jesus’ did. Why would the disciples of Jesus have come to the conclusion that his crucifixion had not been a defeat but a triumph—unless they had seen him risen from the dead?” (208). In addition, “it was absolute blasphemy to propose that any human being should be worshipped. Yet hundreds of Jews began worshipping Jesus literally overnight. The hymn to Christ as God that Paul quotes in Philippians 2 is generally recognized to have been written just a few years after the crucifixion,” (209-210).
“The Christian view of resurrection, absolutely unprecedented in history, sprang up full-blown immediately after the death of Jesus. There was no process of development. His followers said their beliefs did not come from debating and discussing. They were just telling others what they had seen themselves,” (209). “Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, with such power? No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead—why did this group do so? No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview virtually overnight? How do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their belief?” (210). To bail out by saying that miracle is impossible, is to leave such questions unanswered. (To discuss the possibility of miracles, go here: www.ichthus77.blogspot.com/Signs). People from the first century had just as much reason to be skeptical about an individual resurrecting, yet the church was born and grew because they let the evidence speak for itself.
This is not mentioned in the chapter, but compare John 20:19 and Acts 2:14, and answer this question: what explains the change in Jesus’ disciples, from being full of fear, to being full of boldness?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
RFG 12: The (True) Story of the Cross
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 12: The (True) Story of the Cross
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
TWELVE: The (True) Story of the Cross
“In chapter 12, the author responds to the critique that “‘The Christian God sounds like the vengeful gods of primitive times who needed to be appeased by human sacrifice.’ Why can’t God just accept everyone or at least those who are sorry for their wrongdoings?” (p. 187). To answer this question, Keller compares God to a person who has been wronged by another person. The injured party can exact revenge by making the offender suffer, or the wronged party can instead take the difficult path of forgiveness. When you forgive, you choose not to make the wrongdoer suffer for what he or she has done. The person who was wronged suffers instead. By forgiving the wrongdoer, Keller states, “[y]ou are absorbing the debt, taking the cost of it completely on yourself instead of taking it out of the other person. It hurts terribly. Many people would say it feels like a kind of death” (p. 189). Thus, God suffered the pain of his Son’s death in order to forgive the sins of humanity. And because he did so, the wrongdoers (humanity) are freed from the debt of their wrongdoing. How do you feel about Keller comparing the pain of human forgiveness to God’s act of sacrificing his Son to redeem humanity?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
I liked how Keller pointed out costly forgiveness is not ‘cheap grace’ -- it is a death leading to resurrection, “instead of the life-long living death of bitterness and cynicism,” (189). I liked how he said human forgiveness works this way because we are made in the image (love) of our Creator.
Do you think that, if God is good, it would require that He has made His love of good and hatred of evil manifest? Would it require His love be optional, lest it not be love? Would it require He do something to bring evil to justice? Would you think that if He has not done that, He (given He exists) is not good?
I liked how he pointed out the motivation for confrontation and holding someone accountable is love, wanting the person to change for the better and be renewed, rather than wanting to hurt them. That was the love God demonstrated on the cross. “Therefore the God of the Bible is not like the primitive deities who demanded our blood for their wrath to be appeased. Rather, this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honor moral justice and merciful love so that someday he can destroy evil without destroying us,” (192). “On the cross neither justice nor mercy loses out—both are fulfilled at once. Jesus’ death was necessary if God was going to take justice seriously and still love us,” (197).
I liked how he pointed out God’s substitutional sacrifice, the great reversal, is the essence of life-changing love. This reminds me of Wolfgang Carstens’ “The Knife and the Wound Philosophy” which I reply to with my “The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy” which is essentially the Golden Rule, referred to as an ethic of reciprocity on Wikipedia. It isn’t “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” – it’s applied empathy.
I liked how he points out Jesus turns the values of the world upside down and implied Christians are a counterculture. I liked how he mentioned how the greatest movies always have the theme of someone giving their life for someone else’s, and that we are in ‘the’ grandest narrative of all eternity (and that ain’t no fishin’ story).
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
TWELVE: The (True) Story of the Cross
“In chapter 12, the author responds to the critique that “‘The Christian God sounds like the vengeful gods of primitive times who needed to be appeased by human sacrifice.’ Why can’t God just accept everyone or at least those who are sorry for their wrongdoings?” (p. 187). To answer this question, Keller compares God to a person who has been wronged by another person. The injured party can exact revenge by making the offender suffer, or the wronged party can instead take the difficult path of forgiveness. When you forgive, you choose not to make the wrongdoer suffer for what he or she has done. The person who was wronged suffers instead. By forgiving the wrongdoer, Keller states, “[y]ou are absorbing the debt, taking the cost of it completely on yourself instead of taking it out of the other person. It hurts terribly. Many people would say it feels like a kind of death” (p. 189). Thus, God suffered the pain of his Son’s death in order to forgive the sins of humanity. And because he did so, the wrongdoers (humanity) are freed from the debt of their wrongdoing. How do you feel about Keller comparing the pain of human forgiveness to God’s act of sacrificing his Son to redeem humanity?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
I liked how Keller pointed out costly forgiveness is not ‘cheap grace’ -- it is a death leading to resurrection, “instead of the life-long living death of bitterness and cynicism,” (189). I liked how he said human forgiveness works this way because we are made in the image (love) of our Creator.
Do you think that, if God is good, it would require that He has made His love of good and hatred of evil manifest? Would it require His love be optional, lest it not be love? Would it require He do something to bring evil to justice? Would you think that if He has not done that, He (given He exists) is not good?
I liked how he pointed out the motivation for confrontation and holding someone accountable is love, wanting the person to change for the better and be renewed, rather than wanting to hurt them. That was the love God demonstrated on the cross. “Therefore the God of the Bible is not like the primitive deities who demanded our blood for their wrath to be appeased. Rather, this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honor moral justice and merciful love so that someday he can destroy evil without destroying us,” (192). “On the cross neither justice nor mercy loses out—both are fulfilled at once. Jesus’ death was necessary if God was going to take justice seriously and still love us,” (197).
I liked how he pointed out God’s substitutional sacrifice, the great reversal, is the essence of life-changing love. This reminds me of Wolfgang Carstens’ “The Knife and the Wound Philosophy” which I reply to with my “The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy” which is essentially the Golden Rule, referred to as an ethic of reciprocity on Wikipedia. It isn’t “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” – it’s applied empathy.
I liked how he points out Jesus turns the values of the world upside down and implied Christians are a counterculture. I liked how he mentioned how the greatest movies always have the theme of someone giving their life for someone else’s, and that we are in ‘the’ grandest narrative of all eternity (and that ain’t no fishin’ story).
RFG 11: Religion and the Gospel
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 11: Religion and the Gospel
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
ELEVEN: Religion and the Gospel
“In chapter 11, the author contrasts religion with the message of the Christian gospel. He points out that religion is a set of rules and standards that determine what a person must do to obtain divine approval and enter heaven. In contrast, he states, the gospel makes it clear that no human can measure up to God’s standard — which is perfection. That explains why God sent Jesus, his Son, to earth to die for the sins of humanity. The perfect God, in human flesh, was sacrificed for imperfect humanity. Keller writes: “The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued … that Jesus was glad to die for me” (p. 181). How do you respond to Keller’s characterization of religion in contrast to the message of the gospel? How do you react to his summary of the meaning of the gospel?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
I think it is important to note how, as Keller pointed out, “All other major faiths have founders who are teachers that show the way to salvation. Only Jesus claimed to actually be the way of salvation himself,” (174).
My pastor sometimes uses this “religion, irreligion, and the gospel” idea of Tim Keller’s in his sermons, so I was familiar with it. I think it is something we need to keep reminding ourselves of. I think many of us grow up with the religious mindset, never truly understanding the gospel mindset even if we were raised in a Christian family.
In both religion and irreligion, we are slaves. Only the gospel sets us free. I liked this quote, “We are not in control of our lives. We are living for something and we are controlled by that, the true lord of our lives,” (185). If you don’t live for Jesus, you will live for something else.
I liked Keller’s discussion of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – if my reading list wasn’t so long, I’d read it right now. I liked his discussion of pride and Pharisaism (religious mindset) and that there are two types: liberals who feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people, and conservatives who feel superior to the less moral and devout (180). It is building our identity on our own good works, our own self-salvation (impossible) rather than on God’s unconditional acceptance. It is a rejection of the gospel message, of God’s love, of our Savior.
His love is radical, and a response to it is radical. I liked how Keller discussed Valjean’s response to the bishop’s grace contrasted with Javert’s unfortunate suicide in Les Miserables. He couldn’t handle the paradigm-shift. Another one I should read.
I liked Keller’s mention of humble confidence, despite circumstances. It won’t necessarily be all roses, but you will know you are loved with an unshakable love. I liked that he pointed out that this doesn’t lead us to want to go sin our faces off, but instead we are changed in the presence of such love and want it to radiate through us.
The subject matter of this chapter is definitely something I struggle with. I obsess over others’ assessments rather than accepting God’s assessment of me, I feel proud of myself for things I couldn’t have done without God or things that had no love in them, I comfort myself with thoughts of “at least I’m not like them.” But He loves me anyway.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
ELEVEN: Religion and the Gospel
“In chapter 11, the author contrasts religion with the message of the Christian gospel. He points out that religion is a set of rules and standards that determine what a person must do to obtain divine approval and enter heaven. In contrast, he states, the gospel makes it clear that no human can measure up to God’s standard — which is perfection. That explains why God sent Jesus, his Son, to earth to die for the sins of humanity. The perfect God, in human flesh, was sacrificed for imperfect humanity. Keller writes: “The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued … that Jesus was glad to die for me” (p. 181). How do you respond to Keller’s characterization of religion in contrast to the message of the gospel? How do you react to his summary of the meaning of the gospel?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
I think it is important to note how, as Keller pointed out, “All other major faiths have founders who are teachers that show the way to salvation. Only Jesus claimed to actually be the way of salvation himself,” (174).
My pastor sometimes uses this “religion, irreligion, and the gospel” idea of Tim Keller’s in his sermons, so I was familiar with it. I think it is something we need to keep reminding ourselves of. I think many of us grow up with the religious mindset, never truly understanding the gospel mindset even if we were raised in a Christian family.
In both religion and irreligion, we are slaves. Only the gospel sets us free. I liked this quote, “We are not in control of our lives. We are living for something and we are controlled by that, the true lord of our lives,” (185). If you don’t live for Jesus, you will live for something else.
I liked Keller’s discussion of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – if my reading list wasn’t so long, I’d read it right now. I liked his discussion of pride and Pharisaism (religious mindset) and that there are two types: liberals who feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people, and conservatives who feel superior to the less moral and devout (180). It is building our identity on our own good works, our own self-salvation (impossible) rather than on God’s unconditional acceptance. It is a rejection of the gospel message, of God’s love, of our Savior.
His love is radical, and a response to it is radical. I liked how Keller discussed Valjean’s response to the bishop’s grace contrasted with Javert’s unfortunate suicide in Les Miserables. He couldn’t handle the paradigm-shift. Another one I should read.
I liked Keller’s mention of humble confidence, despite circumstances. It won’t necessarily be all roses, but you will know you are loved with an unshakable love. I liked that he pointed out that this doesn’t lead us to want to go sin our faces off, but instead we are changed in the presence of such love and want it to radiate through us.
The subject matter of this chapter is definitely something I struggle with. I obsess over others’ assessments rather than accepting God’s assessment of me, I feel proud of myself for things I couldn’t have done without God or things that had no love in them, I comfort myself with thoughts of “at least I’m not like them.” But He loves me anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)