*Note - In what I am about to post, I want to add some disclaimers. I just want to say that I am not a psychologist, social worker, pastor, counselor or something of that sort. Nor have I studied these sort of issues formally in depth. So take what I say with a grain of salt. Basically I am an overly introspective person, who spends too much time in solitude, analyzing either my thoughts or that of others.
Here and there, I will come across ppl who long for a special someone in their life - a significant other. Here and there, I myself go through phases where I long for someone and not long for someone.
If you have such struggles, here are some questions that I have for you?
Q1. How often are you spending time in isolation? How often are you by yourself? Is it solitude or isolation?
Q2. How often are you relating to people? Are there active ongoing healthy non-romantic relationships in your life? Here I am talking about live actual relationships. I mean people who are physically present in your life. Not someone you know through the internet out in some country somewhere or an old friend that you talk to once in a while every 6 months.
Q3. If you are actually relating to people, then I have this other question for you?
Are these quality relationships or are you simply discussing the weather and doing small talk? Are you really getting to know people? If its just small talk, then you are still in isolation?
Here is where I am going with this?
Part of the reason why we long for a special someone in our life, is because God has placed that in us. It may actually be a means by which He sanctifies us. For example, men tend to be filthy uncouth barbarians until this desire is awakened and then the need to impress someone arises. They do a bit of growing up then.
The problem arises when this desire becomes a consuming desire. Its all you think about.
When that happens, I think that we need to take a close look at the relationships in our life. We need to ask if we have any in the first place. And if so, we need to ask if they are real relationships? That is, are we really relating to people or is it just small talk or some kind of one dimensional talk (i.e. you only discuss work issues with friends at work).
I think that having healthy relationships in life goes a long way towards defraying this longing or ache for a special someone. You see in the end it is not about having a special connection with a special someone. It is about having substantive connections with a good group of people. Period. You will be surprised to see how far real relationships go in terms of making this longing subside. We are meant to be persons-in-relation... persons-in-communion. Yes. I think that there is something trinitarian going on here. (Are we inhering in one another just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit inhere in one another?)
To this also I would like to add one more thing. Look at your relationship to God also. Is it weak or intimate? Is Jesus Christ active in your life. In James it says, "draw near to me and I will draw near to you." Our vertical relationship with God will feed and constitute our horizontal relationships.
One more thing ... if you still find yourself struggling with this longing, and have all kinds of healthy relationships, take a look in your life and see if anyone is hectoring you about meeting a special someone. Asian parents are notorious for hectoring their kids about getting married and such. When this happens, don't fool yourself into thinking that you are struggling with a longing for someone. It's really about other people in your life and their issues. You simply need to make sure that you are in the right with God. His timing is the right timing.
C'est Ca.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Christianity & Homosexuality - the debate in India
Can a person be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time?
I've been floating around a major Indian newspaper and its articles and blogs on the recent debate on legalizing same-sex sex. There seem to be certain things that I have not seen discussed there so I will mention them here. My 2 paisas' worth...
1. It seems to me that the reasons for same-sex attraction are many. What I have observed in my life - is that in some cases, there was some kind of a childhood issue. For example, a homosexual could have had a father who was very remote or distant or even absent, or the opposite, overbearing, and rough, and physically abusive. Kids are different. Some are more sensitive than others. Some need to be held more often than others. I have also come across cases of people being molested during their childhood.
Then quite frankly, there are people who seem to come from picture perfect families, and yet still struggle with same sex attraction. I have not met any folks from this background personally however, but they are there.
2. Some people have changed. I know this because I know a person who left homosexuality and finds women attractive now. I know this because I have read accounts of such persons. I know this also because the Bible acknowledges this:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." ~ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
3. While some can and have changed, lets face facts, others may not and have not been able to change ever, and this during the entirety of their lives. Yes, they may have found forgiveness for their sins and have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, and are producing fruit. However, they still struggle with same-sex attraction. Becoming a Christian has not made this attraction go away.
Henri Nouwen was one of these folks. He struggled yet lived a celibate life. (More on this below).
4. We need to distinguish between what a person is and what the person does. A person can be a homosexual and not be involved in homosexual activity. There are people who are alcoholics who have been sober for 20 years. You can love a person for who they are and yet still not like what they do.
5. As I mentioned previously, if a person has repented of their sins and turned to Jesus Christ, and find that they still struggle with same-sex attraction, they also need to accept that they may struggle with this attraction for the rest of their life. This is a tough and painful teaching. However these Christians needs to accept that they are homosexuals, and that they may have a constant ache all of their lives. (More on this below).
6. There is something similar with healing. In my life I have seen some Christians be miraculously healed of X, and others struggle with X for the rest of their life. Joni Eareckson Tada comes to mind. God works differently with different people. My friend Jeremy - his grandfather, age 70, was the town alcoholic. When he became a believer, he stopped drinking automatically. Not a drop. He even lost his desire for it. In addition, he also stopped physically abusing his kids and grandkids. This man bucked a lifetime of bad habits overnight. Other alcoholics who come know Jesus do not experience the same grace. They struggle with the bottle for years.
7. The Church needs to accept such people with open and loving arms. The Church needs to grow up. Can a person struggling with same-sex attraction walk into the doors of your church and be viewed as the rest of us are? - Sinners in need of Christ.
8. Note - To experience temptation is not a sin. Christ Himself was tempted in many ways. So also to have same-sex desires is not sin. To act on them however is.
9. Finally, one other thing - while a Christian homosexual may have a constant ache all of their life, and may have to be celibate, yet still God will pour out His grace upon them. Yes - there is that famous verse of Paul's :
"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
~ I Corinthians 12:7-10
God will not simply give you grace sufficient, He will pour out his grace on you, more than you can ask or imagine.
10. Henri Nouwen struggled with same-sex attraction, and from what I have gathered, it was rough at times. On the other hand, God simply poured out His grace upon Nouwen. Nouwen was such a rich blessing to so many people. Henri Nouwen died having lived a full life.
I think that God matches suffering with grace. If the ante of suffering goes up in a person's life, then so too does the grace at work in their life. Actually, God not only matches grace for suffering, but I think overwhelms suffering with grace. Amazing things will go down in their life. This is my experience.
11. The above can also be applied to heterosexuals singles who struggle with unfulfillment. These are folks who strongly desire to get married. Their bodies ache and burn and long for the opposite sex. They pray day and night asking God to provide someone for them. The too long for a special someone in their life. They too long for relief for their physical bodies. They too long to have children. They too long for fatherhood or motherhood. They too struggle with loneliness. They too have a 1,001 aches that are constant. And yet God never provides any one for them for the rest of their life. These folks also will experience God's grace in rich abundance!
"Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
~ Ephesians 3:20-21
My 2 paisas' worth...
I've been floating around a major Indian newspaper and its articles and blogs on the recent debate on legalizing same-sex sex. There seem to be certain things that I have not seen discussed there so I will mention them here. My 2 paisas' worth...
1. It seems to me that the reasons for same-sex attraction are many. What I have observed in my life - is that in some cases, there was some kind of a childhood issue. For example, a homosexual could have had a father who was very remote or distant or even absent, or the opposite, overbearing, and rough, and physically abusive. Kids are different. Some are more sensitive than others. Some need to be held more often than others. I have also come across cases of people being molested during their childhood.
Then quite frankly, there are people who seem to come from picture perfect families, and yet still struggle with same sex attraction. I have not met any folks from this background personally however, but they are there.
2. Some people have changed. I know this because I know a person who left homosexuality and finds women attractive now. I know this because I have read accounts of such persons. I know this also because the Bible acknowledges this:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." ~ 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
3. While some can and have changed, lets face facts, others may not and have not been able to change ever, and this during the entirety of their lives. Yes, they may have found forgiveness for their sins and have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, and are producing fruit. However, they still struggle with same-sex attraction. Becoming a Christian has not made this attraction go away.
Henri Nouwen was one of these folks. He struggled yet lived a celibate life. (More on this below).
4. We need to distinguish between what a person is and what the person does. A person can be a homosexual and not be involved in homosexual activity. There are people who are alcoholics who have been sober for 20 years. You can love a person for who they are and yet still not like what they do.
5. As I mentioned previously, if a person has repented of their sins and turned to Jesus Christ, and find that they still struggle with same-sex attraction, they also need to accept that they may struggle with this attraction for the rest of their life. This is a tough and painful teaching. However these Christians needs to accept that they are homosexuals, and that they may have a constant ache all of their lives. (More on this below).
6. There is something similar with healing. In my life I have seen some Christians be miraculously healed of X, and others struggle with X for the rest of their life. Joni Eareckson Tada comes to mind. God works differently with different people. My friend Jeremy - his grandfather, age 70, was the town alcoholic. When he became a believer, he stopped drinking automatically. Not a drop. He even lost his desire for it. In addition, he also stopped physically abusing his kids and grandkids. This man bucked a lifetime of bad habits overnight. Other alcoholics who come know Jesus do not experience the same grace. They struggle with the bottle for years.
7. The Church needs to accept such people with open and loving arms. The Church needs to grow up. Can a person struggling with same-sex attraction walk into the doors of your church and be viewed as the rest of us are? - Sinners in need of Christ.
8. Note - To experience temptation is not a sin. Christ Himself was tempted in many ways. So also to have same-sex desires is not sin. To act on them however is.
9. Finally, one other thing - while a Christian homosexual may have a constant ache all of their life, and may have to be celibate, yet still God will pour out His grace upon them. Yes - there is that famous verse of Paul's :
"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
~ I Corinthians 12:7-10
God will not simply give you grace sufficient, He will pour out his grace on you, more than you can ask or imagine.
10. Henri Nouwen struggled with same-sex attraction, and from what I have gathered, it was rough at times. On the other hand, God simply poured out His grace upon Nouwen. Nouwen was such a rich blessing to so many people. Henri Nouwen died having lived a full life.
I think that God matches suffering with grace. If the ante of suffering goes up in a person's life, then so too does the grace at work in their life. Actually, God not only matches grace for suffering, but I think overwhelms suffering with grace. Amazing things will go down in their life. This is my experience.
11. The above can also be applied to heterosexuals singles who struggle with unfulfillment. These are folks who strongly desire to get married. Their bodies ache and burn and long for the opposite sex. They pray day and night asking God to provide someone for them. The too long for a special someone in their life. They too long for relief for their physical bodies. They too long to have children. They too long for fatherhood or motherhood. They too struggle with loneliness. They too have a 1,001 aches that are constant. And yet God never provides any one for them for the rest of their life. These folks also will experience God's grace in rich abundance!
"Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
~ Ephesians 3:20-21
My 2 paisas' worth...
Friday, July 03, 2009
Robert P. George on the Struggle Over Marriage
I think that the above Robert P. George interview is a worthy read.
Here is a clip that we know is all too true :
Another and far more insidious and brutal way in which many advocates of sexual liberalism deploy cultural power in the cause of redefining marriage is by depicting their opponents as bigots. Across the country, they have pursued a strategy of intimidation against anyone who dares to dissent from their position in a public way. Their appalling treatment of Carrie Prejean is merely one example. Their relentless personal attacks on her were designed to send a clear message to others who aspire to succeed in any area of public life, from beauty pageants to careers in journalism and politics: “If you oppose us, if you have the temerity to express support for the conjugal conception of marriage, we will smear you as a rube and a bigot, make your life hell, and do our best to ruin you.”
Here is a clip that we know is all too true :
Another and far more insidious and brutal way in which many advocates of sexual liberalism deploy cultural power in the cause of redefining marriage is by depicting their opponents as bigots. Across the country, they have pursued a strategy of intimidation against anyone who dares to dissent from their position in a public way. Their appalling treatment of Carrie Prejean is merely one example. Their relentless personal attacks on her were designed to send a clear message to others who aspire to succeed in any area of public life, from beauty pageants to careers in journalism and politics: “If you oppose us, if you have the temerity to express support for the conjugal conception of marriage, we will smear you as a rube and a bigot, make your life hell, and do our best to ruin you.”
New Delhi (India) High Court Decriminalizes Gay Sex
I am surprised that this has not gotten as much press in the US media as I thought. It has been reported in the BBC. In any event, this is big news in India. Basically the High Court of New Delhi - a major Indian city in the north of India, has rule to decriminalize gay sex. It will eventually follow in the rest of India.
As per this article, I see a quote from a writer for the Indian Express stating that this is
"... a victory for a secular, democratic, constitutional and free India,"
Note the word, "secular". This is not a victory for religion. It is a defeat for religion.
In the same article, the DNA is quoted as stating,
"Religious groups have protested. But while their right to a point of view is acceptable, to bring religion into this debate is wholly unnecessary - this has to be a social and legal debate."
In other words, its OK for everyone to have a point of view - who after all does not have a point of view? However it is not OK to act on your view, if it is a religious point of view. That is unacceptable.
Do you see the problem here? Why is bringing religion into this debate wholly unnecessary? Why must this be a social and legal debate only?
I suspect that the answer will be something like - "Because religious people are biased to a certain point of view, whereas we enlightened secular and legal people are not." So religious people do not count. Their "vote" does not matter.
I think that the only people who are biased as people who have failed to think things through from a social, legal AND religious point of view. I'll throw in philosophical point of view also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All that said... here are some other thoughts ... thought out loud.
(1) Just because something is legalized does not mean that it is not a sin in God's eyes.
(2) Where do we draw the line with regards to what sins we make illegal? Should we also make masturbation illegal? If so how do we arrest someone who masturbates? Should we make pre-marital sex a sin? Or extra-marital sex a sin? Why make gay sex illegal, and not masturbation or pre-marital sex or for that matter extra-marital sex? (I am sure that this argument can be extended to prostitution where prostitution is "done right" as in Amsterdam).
~ The Bible states in the book of Jeremiah 17:9 that the "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick. Who can understand it?"
Jesus says in the book of Mark 7:14-23:
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
//-- cut --//
21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"
I.e. there is something wrong with the human heart... human nature is corrupt. It's bent is to do evil. The essence of sin is self-worship. We turn our backs away from God and worship ourselves.
My point - Do we want to make all these things illegal? Why single out gay sex?
(3) It is better simply to point out that sin will earn its reward. All people will someday stand before God and have to give an account. This will be an absolutely terrifying day for some people. It will be like nothing ever experienced in this life. This will be THE ultimate day of justice. You will either go to Hell or Heaven. People who basically have gotten away with things in this life, e.g. Pol Pot, will have to give an account to God. (Aside - If God does not exist, then Pol Pot basically wins and injustice has triumphed).
(4) I think that it is far more important for a person to be concerned about their standing in God's eyes, than man's eyes. If you are a sinner, you need to repent (turn away and repudiate) of your sins. You need to understand why Jesus died on the cross for man's sins. Why? You need to ask God for forgiveness. You need to accept Jesus' Christ death on the cross for your sins. You need to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of your life.
*Note: Make no mistake - Jesus Christ is the one and only God that there is. Other gods do not exist. This is the God to turn to.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" ~ Matthew 23:33
As per this article, I see a quote from a writer for the Indian Express stating that this is
"... a victory for a secular, democratic, constitutional and free India,"
Note the word, "secular". This is not a victory for religion. It is a defeat for religion.
In the same article, the DNA is quoted as stating,
"Religious groups have protested. But while their right to a point of view is acceptable, to bring religion into this debate is wholly unnecessary - this has to be a social and legal debate."
In other words, its OK for everyone to have a point of view - who after all does not have a point of view? However it is not OK to act on your view, if it is a religious point of view. That is unacceptable.
Do you see the problem here? Why is bringing religion into this debate wholly unnecessary? Why must this be a social and legal debate only?
I suspect that the answer will be something like - "Because religious people are biased to a certain point of view, whereas we enlightened secular and legal people are not." So religious people do not count. Their "vote" does not matter.
I think that the only people who are biased as people who have failed to think things through from a social, legal AND religious point of view. I'll throw in philosophical point of view also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All that said... here are some other thoughts ... thought out loud.
(1) Just because something is legalized does not mean that it is not a sin in God's eyes.
(2) Where do we draw the line with regards to what sins we make illegal? Should we also make masturbation illegal? If so how do we arrest someone who masturbates? Should we make pre-marital sex a sin? Or extra-marital sex a sin? Why make gay sex illegal, and not masturbation or pre-marital sex or for that matter extra-marital sex? (I am sure that this argument can be extended to prostitution where prostitution is "done right" as in Amsterdam).
~ The Bible states in the book of Jeremiah 17:9 that the "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick. Who can understand it?"
Jesus says in the book of Mark 7:14-23:
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
//-- cut --//
21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"
I.e. there is something wrong with the human heart... human nature is corrupt. It's bent is to do evil. The essence of sin is self-worship. We turn our backs away from God and worship ourselves.
My point - Do we want to make all these things illegal? Why single out gay sex?
(3) It is better simply to point out that sin will earn its reward. All people will someday stand before God and have to give an account. This will be an absolutely terrifying day for some people. It will be like nothing ever experienced in this life. This will be THE ultimate day of justice. You will either go to Hell or Heaven. People who basically have gotten away with things in this life, e.g. Pol Pot, will have to give an account to God. (Aside - If God does not exist, then Pol Pot basically wins and injustice has triumphed).
(4) I think that it is far more important for a person to be concerned about their standing in God's eyes, than man's eyes. If you are a sinner, you need to repent (turn away and repudiate) of your sins. You need to understand why Jesus died on the cross for man's sins. Why? You need to ask God for forgiveness. You need to accept Jesus' Christ death on the cross for your sins. You need to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of your life.
*Note: Make no mistake - Jesus Christ is the one and only God that there is. Other gods do not exist. This is the God to turn to.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" ~ Matthew 23:33
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
PnCing OGL
Or, how to incorporate Pulp in the Cup with D20 rules.
Treat all rolls like oppositional roles, even rolls against a difficulty class (DC).
For rolls against a DC, subtract 10 from the given DC, even if that leaves a negative number. Call this the difficulty adds. So when the player rolls their d20 and adds his bonuses, the GM rolls a 3d6 and adds the difficulty adds. If the player's total beats the GM's total, the player succeeds.
For saving throws against a fixed DC subtract 10 as before, but this time the player rolls a 3d6 and adds their bonuses, and the GM rolls a d20 and adds the difficulty adds to that.
In character versus character contests where both are equally footed (like arm wrestling, foot racing or competing for initiative in combat), everyone rolls a d20.
But in cases where one is acting and the other responding (such as when one is sneaking and the other guarding, or when one is attacking and the other parrying) the initiating player adds their bonuses (or boni) to a d20 roll and the responding player adds their bonuses to a 3d6 roll.
That ought to do it. It will also add some thrill to the game, I think.
Treat all rolls like oppositional roles, even rolls against a difficulty class (DC).
For rolls against a DC, subtract 10 from the given DC, even if that leaves a negative number. Call this the difficulty adds. So when the player rolls their d20 and adds his bonuses, the GM rolls a 3d6 and adds the difficulty adds. If the player's total beats the GM's total, the player succeeds.
For saving throws against a fixed DC subtract 10 as before, but this time the player rolls a 3d6 and adds their bonuses, and the GM rolls a d20 and adds the difficulty adds to that.
In character versus character contests where both are equally footed (like arm wrestling, foot racing or competing for initiative in combat), everyone rolls a d20.
But in cases where one is acting and the other responding (such as when one is sneaking and the other guarding, or when one is attacking and the other parrying) the initiating player adds their bonuses (or boni) to a d20 roll and the responding player adds their bonuses to a 3d6 roll.
That ought to do it. It will also add some thrill to the game, I think.
Shadows of the Emerald City
Free RPG day has come and gone. I wanted to use it to make a dry run on my new campaign setting idea but no one showed up at the store. Sad. It looks like RPGs are in decline again from where I'm sitting.
About the setting: "Shadows of the Emerald City" (formerly "Mutants of Syracuse")
The Basic Idea: Make an actual city (in this case, Syracuse NY) the setting of a campaign. Syracuse is your typical upstate blighted urban city, standing always in the shadows of NYC (and even Rochester), yet a home to several people whose families have lived here for generations, with strongly defined ethnic neighborhoods and festivals that bring a taste of their cultures to the front. The city is struggling with harsh economic realities and faux relief proposals, just like any American city in a post industrial age. It has its local personalities (car dealers and mall builders, for example) and its own personality.
But also, unknown to the general population, the city is at the nexus of several circles of arcane power, a mysterious reservoir of concentrated perturbations of psychic force that has drawn the attention of those who live in the background of the world. The immediate effect is that this power has imbued several of the residents and given them (or cursed them) with strange powers and advantages, forcing them to go into hiding from the public. This has attracted ambitious scientists who have attempted to harness and understand (typically in that order) these strange powers to their own uses. But others have also noticed, others from in and outside of the Galactic Confederacy of Worlds, which sees Earth as a protected zone and Syracuse as its point of contact, but also yet others from alternate planes of existence also are drawn into the Mystical Vortex, including the Ancient Ones walled off in their Dimensional Prison wishing to reclaim their old authority over Earth. But first the must prevent the Final Cause from being born in the south side of the city.
In this campaign, player characters are Syracusian natives who have become thus surprised by their new powers and have begun to discover this alternate world that co-exists "alongside" the city. They discover the "openings in the hedge" that allow them to see the real contest of power that mundanes aren't able to see. In part, this is like a "Men in Black"/"Harry Potter" type of campaign where the existence of the hidden world is kept secret at all costs. Players have to solve the mysteries behind the curtain while maintaining the facade of civil society.
Often this involves adventures that are set among landmarks familiar to locals - bars, villages, malls, research institutes, and so on. The way these function as portals to the world alongside is in having things like a basement below the basement, the loft above the loft, the floor between the floors, the coliseum inside the phone booth, etc. Also, while the city setting follows the actual city to a large degree, in the actual narrative it is described as an alternate history of Syracuse so that features attributed to locations and persons in the city are not to be confused as attributions of actual locations and persons in the actual history of Syracuse. The setting is set in an alternate version of the 1990's prior to Y2K, Destiny Co. has placated the city boards by rebuilding the New White City" roller coaster park, and Franklin motors has reopened its plant to produce an innovative hybrid vehicle. This also allows a bit more color to be added to the setting.
I am adapting the setting to Mutants and Masterminds because it is a rules lite, narrative friendly, and widely used set of rules. I had to concede that this is a kind of superhero setting but in my mind it is definitely not a four color high power one (no capes!). Fortunately, M&M allows for power level adjustments and their new "Iron Age" supplement captures the vibe I want.
With respect to Christian integration; I am aiming to follow C.S. Lewis' example in his novel "'Til We Have Faces", which is basically to operate within a pagan interpretation of life but to make Christian points from within it, something that a Christian writer is well within their rights to do. The point of course is to work around the cloying familiarity (or rather the "quasi-familiarity) with the Christian tradition that causes people to dismiss understanding it out of hand while subtly reintroducing it afresh one little nudge at a time. And of course, the point is still to entertain and have fun in a creative and social way.
About the setting: "Shadows of the Emerald City" (formerly "Mutants of Syracuse")
The Basic Idea: Make an actual city (in this case, Syracuse NY) the setting of a campaign. Syracuse is your typical upstate blighted urban city, standing always in the shadows of NYC (and even Rochester), yet a home to several people whose families have lived here for generations, with strongly defined ethnic neighborhoods and festivals that bring a taste of their cultures to the front. The city is struggling with harsh economic realities and faux relief proposals, just like any American city in a post industrial age. It has its local personalities (car dealers and mall builders, for example) and its own personality.
But also, unknown to the general population, the city is at the nexus of several circles of arcane power, a mysterious reservoir of concentrated perturbations of psychic force that has drawn the attention of those who live in the background of the world. The immediate effect is that this power has imbued several of the residents and given them (or cursed them) with strange powers and advantages, forcing them to go into hiding from the public. This has attracted ambitious scientists who have attempted to harness and understand (typically in that order) these strange powers to their own uses. But others have also noticed, others from in and outside of the Galactic Confederacy of Worlds, which sees Earth as a protected zone and Syracuse as its point of contact, but also yet others from alternate planes of existence also are drawn into the Mystical Vortex, including the Ancient Ones walled off in their Dimensional Prison wishing to reclaim their old authority over Earth. But first the must prevent the Final Cause from being born in the south side of the city.
In this campaign, player characters are Syracusian natives who have become thus surprised by their new powers and have begun to discover this alternate world that co-exists "alongside" the city. They discover the "openings in the hedge" that allow them to see the real contest of power that mundanes aren't able to see. In part, this is like a "Men in Black"/"Harry Potter" type of campaign where the existence of the hidden world is kept secret at all costs. Players have to solve the mysteries behind the curtain while maintaining the facade of civil society.
Often this involves adventures that are set among landmarks familiar to locals - bars, villages, malls, research institutes, and so on. The way these function as portals to the world alongside is in having things like a basement below the basement, the loft above the loft, the floor between the floors, the coliseum inside the phone booth, etc. Also, while the city setting follows the actual city to a large degree, in the actual narrative it is described as an alternate history of Syracuse so that features attributed to locations and persons in the city are not to be confused as attributions of actual locations and persons in the actual history of Syracuse. The setting is set in an alternate version of the 1990's prior to Y2K, Destiny Co. has placated the city boards by rebuilding the New White City" roller coaster park, and Franklin motors has reopened its plant to produce an innovative hybrid vehicle. This also allows a bit more color to be added to the setting.
I am adapting the setting to Mutants and Masterminds because it is a rules lite, narrative friendly, and widely used set of rules. I had to concede that this is a kind of superhero setting but in my mind it is definitely not a four color high power one (no capes!). Fortunately, M&M allows for power level adjustments and their new "Iron Age" supplement captures the vibe I want.
With respect to Christian integration; I am aiming to follow C.S. Lewis' example in his novel "'Til We Have Faces", which is basically to operate within a pagan interpretation of life but to make Christian points from within it, something that a Christian writer is well within their rights to do. The point of course is to work around the cloying familiarity (or rather the "quasi-familiarity) with the Christian tradition that causes people to dismiss understanding it out of hand while subtly reintroducing it afresh one little nudge at a time. And of course, the point is still to entertain and have fun in a creative and social way.
Big Gnus: You want a piece of me?
I have just received word that I (the Gnu) will be in print next year. The up coming volume of Open Court's series of books on philosophy and popular culture "Anime and Philosophy" will contain my chapter entitled "The CPU Has Its Reasons", an exposition of William James paper on the will to believe, using "Armitage the Third: Poly-matrix" to illustrate it.
Finally, my fan tribute op has come.
(And I suppose it has some pedagogical value also.)
Finally, my fan tribute op has come.
(And I suppose it has some pedagogical value also.)
Comm notes
Ravi Zacharias
Level 1: Theoretical
~ the level of the philosophers
~ great ideas level
~~> leads to a question "How does philos generally penetrate people's lives?"
Level 2: Arts
~ Answers the question ---> through the arts
Level 3: the prescriptive
~ conclusions are drawn and prescribed for those who will accept them.
CB2
Add Bryan Chapel
Aside: Writers digest July/aug 09
Level 1: Theoretical
~ the level of the philosophers
~ great ideas level
~~> leads to a question "How does philos generally penetrate people's lives?"
Level 2: Arts
~ Answers the question ---> through the arts
Level 3: the prescriptive
~ conclusions are drawn and prescribed for those who will accept them.
CB2
Add Bryan Chapel
Aside: Writers digest July/aug 09
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
How old is New Covenant Theology
Something that I have to investigate:
Prior to the Nicene Creed being drafted, the language and actions of the church was quite Trinitarian. Although the actual doctrine had not been hammered out in print and such, it was basically there and was a part of the life of the church. I think that something similar can be said of New Covenant Theology. Its always been there. There are people that I know who hold to New Covenant Theology, who do not even know that they hold to it, nor have even heard of it.
Another thought... during the days of the early church - the 1st 3 centuries or so, I can imagine Christians having discussions of the New Covenant, after all the word is used right there in the Bible. I can not however imagine them discussing and age of innocence or conscience and such. Not do I think that they would use terms like covenant of works, especially when they have so recently been given the New Covenant.
*Note - I am just thinking out loudly and I could be wrong...
Prior to the Nicene Creed being drafted, the language and actions of the church was quite Trinitarian. Although the actual doctrine had not been hammered out in print and such, it was basically there and was a part of the life of the church. I think that something similar can be said of New Covenant Theology. Its always been there. There are people that I know who hold to New Covenant Theology, who do not even know that they hold to it, nor have even heard of it.
Another thought... during the days of the early church - the 1st 3 centuries or so, I can imagine Christians having discussions of the New Covenant, after all the word is used right there in the Bible. I can not however imagine them discussing and age of innocence or conscience and such. Not do I think that they would use terms like covenant of works, especially when they have so recently been given the New Covenant.
*Note - I am just thinking out loudly and I could be wrong...
Monday, June 29, 2009
Interesting Discussion on New Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology
There is a great discussion at the Reformation Theology blog, titled
Some Differences of Covenant Theology with New Covenant Theology
I don't know. I have studied the Bible side by side with an article on the Covenant of Works, and simply found the article and subsequently the notion of the Covenant of Works to be unconvincing. Perhaps the article that I read was poor, but the exegetical arguments in favor of the Covenant of Works, seemed to me to be a stretch. (Moreover, the exegesis that I saw was not only bad, it also set a bad example of how exegesis ought to be done.)
On the flip side, I hold to the active obedience of Christ.
The Covenant Theologian might charge me with being inconsistent, however, so long as I find the purported Scriptural warrant to be unconvincing, I think that I am justified in rejecting the Covenant of Works. In addition, I also think that I ought to reject it for the sake of conscience (1 Cor. 10v.28).
So, here is the thought...
Situation A: Suppose I have two doctrines, P and Q, where P contains strong exegetical support, whereas Q has absolutely no exegetical support, but however seems to be an implication of P. Suppose also that P and Q are not trivial matters, nor adiaphora, but are fairly important doctrines, although not so important that to deny them would result in heresy.
In this case, I think that an individual can be
(1) justified in holding to P and Q
and also can be
(2) justified in holding to P but not Q.
Situation B: Now, suppose one other thing. Suppose I have P and Q as above, but now also have a third doctrine, R, where R has strong exegetical support and seems to vaguely argue against Q.
In this case, I think that an individual can be
(1) justified in holding to P and R but not Q.
Anyway... I think that I will have to continue to read up on the Covenant of Works. In the meantime, I will continue to hold to New Covenant Theology, which makes a lot of sense to me. I have not ironed out everything in NCT - I don't think anyone who holds to NCT would say that they have, but yet still I find it to be Biblical.
Some Differences of Covenant Theology with New Covenant Theology
I don't know. I have studied the Bible side by side with an article on the Covenant of Works, and simply found the article and subsequently the notion of the Covenant of Works to be unconvincing. Perhaps the article that I read was poor, but the exegetical arguments in favor of the Covenant of Works, seemed to me to be a stretch. (Moreover, the exegesis that I saw was not only bad, it also set a bad example of how exegesis ought to be done.)
On the flip side, I hold to the active obedience of Christ.
The Covenant Theologian might charge me with being inconsistent, however, so long as I find the purported Scriptural warrant to be unconvincing, I think that I am justified in rejecting the Covenant of Works. In addition, I also think that I ought to reject it for the sake of conscience (1 Cor. 10v.28).
So, here is the thought...
Situation A: Suppose I have two doctrines, P and Q, where P contains strong exegetical support, whereas Q has absolutely no exegetical support, but however seems to be an implication of P. Suppose also that P and Q are not trivial matters, nor adiaphora, but are fairly important doctrines, although not so important that to deny them would result in heresy.
In this case, I think that an individual can be
(1) justified in holding to P and Q
and also can be
(2) justified in holding to P but not Q.
Situation B: Now, suppose one other thing. Suppose I have P and Q as above, but now also have a third doctrine, R, where R has strong exegetical support and seems to vaguely argue against Q.
In this case, I think that an individual can be
(1) justified in holding to P and R but not Q.
Anyway... I think that I will have to continue to read up on the Covenant of Works. In the meantime, I will continue to hold to New Covenant Theology, which makes a lot of sense to me. I have not ironed out everything in NCT - I don't think anyone who holds to NCT would say that they have, but yet still I find it to be Biblical.
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Limited Sufficiency Atonement. View
What I am concerned here is with the efficiency - sufficiency distinction.
Some 5 Pointer Calvinists teach that this distinction is not valid as far as the Limited Atonement doctrine is concerned. See: http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/AbandonedTruth/ATROSSCH5.htm where it is strongly implied that the "sufficiency-efficiency view" - the second view - is unscriptural.
Others teach that this in fact is what is involved in the Limited Atonement. See http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm
That said, I want to just think out loud for a second... just scratch work... I make no guarantees that my thoughts are correct.
*Note - After reading Phil Johnson's The Nature of the Atonement, I see that the first view up above is a minority view.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Thought Experiment:
Suppose that only 3 people existed in the world, Chloe, Zoe, and Joey. Each of these 3 individuals only commit 1 sin each, and that this is the exact same sin, viz., while going for a walk one evening, all three of them spot an object, and all three of them covet that object with the same intensity and for the same duration.
Now let us assume the following scenarios in which Chloe and Zoe are elect and see what comes of them ...
(1) A General (or Universal) Atonement Scenario:
In this case, we can say that Christ died for Chloe, Zoe and Joey, and that His death was sufficient for all three of them. However, it is only efficient for Chloe and Zoe.
(2) A Strictly Limited Atonement scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is invalid.
Here again lets assume, that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, Christ death was sufficient for Chloe & Zoe, but Joey. It was also only efficient for those two.
In this scenario, the sufficiency-efficiency view only holds for Chloe & Zoe. However, as far as all three are concerned, it is invalid, and I suppose that the proper thing say is that the atonement was insufficient for all three, and efficient for only two of them.
(3) A Merely Limited Atonement Scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is valid.
Here again we will assume that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, we will still say that Christ's death was sufficient for all three, but efficient only for Chloe and Zoe.
Now some comments:
1) All three views apply the sufficiency-efficiency distinction in some sense.
2) What the General Atonement doctrine and the Merely Limited Atonement doctrine, both state are that Christ's death was sufficient for every human being that is living and has ever lived.
3) It seems that the Strictly Limited Atonement view's denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction can only come about by some odd chains of reasoning.
What sense does it make to say that Christ's death was only sufficient for Chloe and Zoe and not Joey. All three of them after all committed the same sin, no? Can Christ atone for coveting or not? Or can he only atone for this sin in the case of Chloe or Zoe?
Perhaps some other chain of reasoning feeds this odd denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction? Maybe there is something quantitative going on. Perhaps Christ only died for 2 sins, and not 3 sins? Odd ... I don't know.
Some 5 Pointer Calvinists teach that this distinction is not valid as far as the Limited Atonement doctrine is concerned. See: http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/AbandonedTruth/ATROSSCH5.htm where it is strongly implied that the "sufficiency-efficiency view" - the second view - is unscriptural.
Others teach that this in fact is what is involved in the Limited Atonement. See http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm
That said, I want to just think out loud for a second... just scratch work... I make no guarantees that my thoughts are correct.
*Note - After reading Phil Johnson's The Nature of the Atonement, I see that the first view up above is a minority view.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Thought Experiment:
Suppose that only 3 people existed in the world, Chloe, Zoe, and Joey. Each of these 3 individuals only commit 1 sin each, and that this is the exact same sin, viz., while going for a walk one evening, all three of them spot an object, and all three of them covet that object with the same intensity and for the same duration.
Now let us assume the following scenarios in which Chloe and Zoe are elect and see what comes of them ...
(1) A General (or Universal) Atonement Scenario:
In this case, we can say that Christ died for Chloe, Zoe and Joey, and that His death was sufficient for all three of them. However, it is only efficient for Chloe and Zoe.
(2) A Strictly Limited Atonement scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is invalid.
Here again lets assume, that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, Christ death was sufficient for Chloe & Zoe, but Joey. It was also only efficient for those two.
In this scenario, the sufficiency-efficiency view only holds for Chloe & Zoe. However, as far as all three are concerned, it is invalid, and I suppose that the proper thing say is that the atonement was insufficient for all three, and efficient for only two of them.
(3) A Merely Limited Atonement Scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is valid.
Here again we will assume that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, we will still say that Christ's death was sufficient for all three, but efficient only for Chloe and Zoe.
Now some comments:
1) All three views apply the sufficiency-efficiency distinction in some sense.
2) What the General Atonement doctrine and the Merely Limited Atonement doctrine, both state are that Christ's death was sufficient for every human being that is living and has ever lived.
3) It seems that the Strictly Limited Atonement view's denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction can only come about by some odd chains of reasoning.
What sense does it make to say that Christ's death was only sufficient for Chloe and Zoe and not Joey. All three of them after all committed the same sin, no? Can Christ atone for coveting or not? Or can he only atone for this sin in the case of Chloe or Zoe?
Perhaps some other chain of reasoning feeds this odd denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction? Maybe there is something quantitative going on. Perhaps Christ only died for 2 sins, and not 3 sins? Odd ... I don't know.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Atonement - Limited ? Unlimited? or both ? somewhere in between? neither?
Of late there has been a lot of discussion generated on the doctrines of the Limited Atonement and the Unlimited Atonement. Much of this discussion centers around the atonement being limited in some sense, and unlimited in some other sense. In other words, the atonement is not one or the other, but both limited and unlimited. In fact it is even claimed (seemingly with good support) that historically, this is how the atonement was understood.
Since, I do not know of any website that has all these articles and discussions linked together in one place, so I have decided to put them together here.
Again - *Pls note - this is not about the Limited Atonement vs. the Unlimited Atonement.
~ This is about the Limited Atonement vs. the Limited_Unlimited Atonement.
~ This is about the Unlimited Atonement vs. the Limited_Unlimited Atonement.
1) Calvin and Calvinism ~ This site is worth looking at overall. Lots of history here. This is a link to their main index.
1.1) Also, click here is some interesting stuff on the double-payment dilemma.
A couple of other articles worth looking at here are:
1.2) Revisiting the phrases: “All without distinction,” and “All without exception.”
1.3) The Atonement and Intercession of Christ: An Argument for Limited Atonement
2) Theological Meditations - lots of stuff here to read up on. Tons of historical research going on here.
Here is a post on R.L. Dabney on John 3:16
3) Articles at the Heidelblog - Recovering the reformed confession - Dr. R. Scott Clark
See:
(3.1) Limited Atonement (1)
(3.2) Limited Atonement (2)
(3.3) Limited Atonement (3)
(3.4) Limited Atonement (4)
(3.5) Limited Atonement (5)
(3.6) Limited Atonement (6)
What is also interesting in the discussions in the comments section is a list of a number of men who apparently argued for some form of Hypothetical Universalism. You may be surprised at some of these names.
4) Another series that discusses the Limited Atonement is at Developing the Mind of Christ. This is coming from New Zealand. The blurb preceding the links is the description that goes along with all the articles.
Description: IN THIS SERIES, I FORWARD A CONSIDERED CASE FOR A UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT, PRESENTING WHAT I FIND TO BE THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR IT, DEFINING WHAT EXACTLY IT ENTAILS, AND INTERACTING WITH THE MOST COMMON AND PERSUASIVE OBJECTIONS AGAINST IT.
4.0) On the atonement: introduction This is the introduction to the series, in which I define the views under discussion, itemize my four arguments, and list the objections I'll consider....
4.1) On the atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ's penal substitution....
4.2) On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call This is part 2 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with the universal gospel call, whether it is conceived of as an invitation, or as a command only....
4.3) On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith This is part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement provides no grounds for faith, and makes the assurance of salvation impossible....
4.4) On the atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated? his is part 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that universal atonement requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill....
4.5) On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment This is part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that universal atonement entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins....
4.6) On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyoneThis is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone....
One of the chaps that he interacts with is Darryl at http://bible.geek.nz/
4.7) Four and a half point Calvinism and the Gospel
5) Moving on - We find at BiblicalThought.com, a series of posts titled, For Whom Did Christ Die? by Danny Pelichowski. Although, I have not read the whole thing, in skimming through, I see here that Bruce Ware's Multiple Intentions view is discussed.
(5.1) For Whom Did Christ Die?(1)
(5.2) For Whom Did Christ Die?(2)
(5.3) For Whom Did Christ Die?(3)
(5.4) For Whom Did Christ Die?(4)
(5.5) For Whom Did Christ Die?(5)
(5.6) For Whom Did Christ Die?(6)
6) Here is a series from Reid Ferguson, who is affiliated with New Covenant Theology.
6.0) The Atonement Papers - READ THIS FIRST!
6.1) Atonement 1: Confession of an ex-”Highper” Calvinist
6.2) Atonement 2: Re-visiting my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ
6.3) Atonement 3: Discussing the Atonement – a lot!
6.4) Atonement 4: Lecture Notes on The Atonement
*Make sure you read them in order!
7) Bruce Ware - Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments @ The Society of Evangelical Arminians (* Note - Ware is not an Arminian. I just found a copy of the article there via google.)
8) Mark Driscoll’s “Unlimited Limited Atonement” at Relentless Grace
9) The Atonement is Not Limited (but it is Particular) by Dr. James Galyon
10) Considering the “Multiple Intentions View” of the Atonement @ Fundamentally Reformed - Great set of links... some of which cross over with the list up above.
11) Dr. Eric Svendsen of the Real Clear Theology Blog
(11.0) Time to Stop Making the "L" a Litmus Test for Reformed
(11.1) We Interrupt This Broadcast For lack of better terms, Svendsen describes himself as a 4.5 Calvinist.
(11.2) Christmas Calvinist: A Surrejoinder
(11.2.1) Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministry responds with Christmas Calvinists: A Brotherly Rejoinder (AOMIN)
(11.3) Limited Atonement or Intentional Atonement? The Ongoing Dialogue (with Dr. James White of aomin.org)
(11.3.1) The Extent of the Atonement: the .5th Point of Calvinism (AOMIN)
(11.3.2) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part I) (AOMIN)
(11.4) A brief aside on the limited atonement debate
(11.5) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 1)
(11.5.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part II) (AOMIN)
(11.6) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 2)
(11.6.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part III) (AOMIN)
(11.7) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 3)
(11.8) The Limited Atonement Debate in Historical Perspective
(11.9) He Starts Out Well . . . Svendsen comments on Doug Wilson on the Limited Atonement.
(12) Yet another post @ Theology Online, titled, Universal Ineffectual Atonement vs Limited Effectual Atonement: An Argument for Limited Atonement
Excerpt: "Stated in conversational English, the argument works like this. Either Christ died for all merely and only to make it possible for God to save all, or he died with an effectual intention to save some only. The argument assumes that both cannot be true. ... However..."
At the same site is also
(12.1) Augustine, Prosper, Gottschalk and Aquinas This is a very short article. You could read it in 2 minutes.
(12.2) Hypothetical Sufficiency vs Hypothetical Efficiency Even shorter - 1 minute...
(13) Another article on the atonement that apparently defends the above view via some recourse to John Owen is Parableman's Limited Atonement Post.
I think that John Owen has issues w.r.t this doctrine, and I think that it is possible that Parableman is not saying what a lot of the people above are saying... and will comment on this later.
(14) And speaking of John Owen, here is an article on some of his theology, titled John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 at Calvin and Calvinism blog
(15) Another blog worth perusing is Controversial Calvinism. Here are a couple of articles at the site:
(15.1) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement
(15.2) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement - Part II
There is also an ongoing critique of Roger Nicole view that Calvin held to the limited atonement.
*Note: The Agenda of the author of Controversial Calvinism is worth noting. Here is an excerpt:
Yes, I have an agenda, and I want you to know it before we go any farther. Here, in bold print, is my agenda. I want my readers to accept that a 5-point Calvinist can say the following things:
God loves all men.
God desires the salvation of all men and offers salvation to all by faith in Christ.
Christ died for all men; he died for you.
The last item on the agenda is particularly important to me as it affects the way I describe Christ’s work to others. Though I am not and have never been the pastor of a church, I have had many opportunities to preach in churches over the past 20 years. Until a couple of years ago, I was perplexed about what to say when preaching the gospel. What do I say about the death of Christ? ...
(16) Another series that I just found at Strange Baptist Fire critiques Mark Driscoll. Here are the articles:
(16.1) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Introduction
(16.2) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Why Did Jesus Die?
(16.3) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Chart
(16.4) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Proof-Texts
(16.5) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Calvin Quotes
(16.6) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/limited Atonement: An Unaddressed Question
(16.7) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: “Reconciliation”
(16.8) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Day of Atonement
* I take it Mark Driscoll is a Southern Baptist.
(17) Unlimited/Limited Atonement @ the Christian Skepticism blog
(17.1) Atonement Category Error - Some comments on (17) @ Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics
(18) Karate exegesis [requested classic re-post] by Dan Phillips @ the world famous Pyromaniac
*Note - In the comment section, I strongly recommend following YNOTTONLY, i.e. Tony's comments.
(18.1) Dan's Karate, or Kah-rrah-tay? is Tony's blog, Theological Meditations. If you want a more comprehensive response to Dan Phillips post, please go here. There is also a wealth of historical research on the nature of the extent of the Atonement here.
Since, I do not know of any website that has all these articles and discussions linked together in one place, so I have decided to put them together here.
Again - *Pls note - this is not about the Limited Atonement vs. the Unlimited Atonement.
~ This is about the Limited Atonement vs. the Limited_Unlimited Atonement.
~ This is about the Unlimited Atonement vs. the Limited_Unlimited Atonement.
1) Calvin and Calvinism ~ This site is worth looking at overall. Lots of history here. This is a link to their main index.
1.1) Also, click here is some interesting stuff on the double-payment dilemma.
A couple of other articles worth looking at here are:
1.2) Revisiting the phrases: “All without distinction,” and “All without exception.”
1.3) The Atonement and Intercession of Christ: An Argument for Limited Atonement
2) Theological Meditations - lots of stuff here to read up on. Tons of historical research going on here.
Here is a post on R.L. Dabney on John 3:16
3) Articles at the Heidelblog - Recovering the reformed confession - Dr. R. Scott Clark
See:
(3.1) Limited Atonement (1)
(3.2) Limited Atonement (2)
(3.3) Limited Atonement (3)
(3.4) Limited Atonement (4)
(3.5) Limited Atonement (5)
(3.6) Limited Atonement (6)
What is also interesting in the discussions in the comments section is a list of a number of men who apparently argued for some form of Hypothetical Universalism. You may be surprised at some of these names.
4) Another series that discusses the Limited Atonement is at Developing the Mind of Christ. This is coming from New Zealand. The blurb preceding the links is the description that goes along with all the articles.
Description: IN THIS SERIES, I FORWARD A CONSIDERED CASE FOR A UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT, PRESENTING WHAT I FIND TO BE THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR IT, DEFINING WHAT EXACTLY IT ENTAILS, AND INTERACTING WITH THE MOST COMMON AND PERSUASIVE OBJECTIONS AGAINST IT.
4.0) On the atonement: introduction This is the introduction to the series, in which I define the views under discussion, itemize my four arguments, and list the objections I'll consider....
4.1) On the atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ's penal substitution....
4.2) On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call This is part 2 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with the universal gospel call, whether it is conceived of as an invitation, or as a command only....
4.3) On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith This is part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement provides no grounds for faith, and makes the assurance of salvation impossible....
4.4) On the atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated? his is part 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that universal atonement requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill....
4.5) On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment This is part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that universal atonement entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins....
4.6) On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyoneThis is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone....
One of the chaps that he interacts with is Darryl at http://bible.geek.nz/
4.7) Four and a half point Calvinism and the Gospel
5) Moving on - We find at BiblicalThought.com, a series of posts titled, For Whom Did Christ Die? by Danny Pelichowski. Although, I have not read the whole thing, in skimming through, I see here that Bruce Ware's Multiple Intentions view is discussed.
(5.1) For Whom Did Christ Die?(1)
(5.2) For Whom Did Christ Die?(2)
(5.3) For Whom Did Christ Die?(3)
(5.4) For Whom Did Christ Die?(4)
(5.5) For Whom Did Christ Die?(5)
(5.6) For Whom Did Christ Die?(6)
6) Here is a series from Reid Ferguson, who is affiliated with New Covenant Theology.
6.0) The Atonement Papers - READ THIS FIRST!
6.1) Atonement 1: Confession of an ex-”Highper” Calvinist
6.2) Atonement 2: Re-visiting my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ
6.3) Atonement 3: Discussing the Atonement – a lot!
6.4) Atonement 4: Lecture Notes on The Atonement
*Make sure you read them in order!
7) Bruce Ware - Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments @ The Society of Evangelical Arminians (* Note - Ware is not an Arminian. I just found a copy of the article there via google.)
8) Mark Driscoll’s “Unlimited Limited Atonement” at Relentless Grace
9) The Atonement is Not Limited (but it is Particular) by Dr. James Galyon
10) Considering the “Multiple Intentions View” of the Atonement @ Fundamentally Reformed - Great set of links... some of which cross over with the list up above.
11) Dr. Eric Svendsen of the Real Clear Theology Blog
(11.0) Time to Stop Making the "L" a Litmus Test for Reformed
(11.1) We Interrupt This Broadcast For lack of better terms, Svendsen describes himself as a 4.5 Calvinist.
(11.2) Christmas Calvinist: A Surrejoinder
(11.2.1) Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministry responds with Christmas Calvinists: A Brotherly Rejoinder (AOMIN)
(11.3) Limited Atonement or Intentional Atonement? The Ongoing Dialogue (with Dr. James White of aomin.org)
(11.3.1) The Extent of the Atonement: the .5th Point of Calvinism (AOMIN)
(11.3.2) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part I) (AOMIN)
(11.4) A brief aside on the limited atonement debate
(11.5) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 1)
(11.5.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part II) (AOMIN)
(11.6) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 2)
(11.6.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part III) (AOMIN)
(11.7) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 3)
(11.8) The Limited Atonement Debate in Historical Perspective
(11.9) He Starts Out Well . . . Svendsen comments on Doug Wilson on the Limited Atonement.
(12) Yet another post @ Theology Online, titled, Universal Ineffectual Atonement vs Limited Effectual Atonement: An Argument for Limited Atonement
Excerpt: "Stated in conversational English, the argument works like this. Either Christ died for all merely and only to make it possible for God to save all, or he died with an effectual intention to save some only. The argument assumes that both cannot be true. ... However..."
At the same site is also
(12.1) Augustine, Prosper, Gottschalk and Aquinas This is a very short article. You could read it in 2 minutes.
(12.2) Hypothetical Sufficiency vs Hypothetical Efficiency Even shorter - 1 minute...
(13) Another article on the atonement that apparently defends the above view via some recourse to John Owen is Parableman's Limited Atonement Post.
I think that John Owen has issues w.r.t this doctrine, and I think that it is possible that Parableman is not saying what a lot of the people above are saying... and will comment on this later.
(14) And speaking of John Owen, here is an article on some of his theology, titled John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 at Calvin and Calvinism blog
(15) Another blog worth perusing is Controversial Calvinism. Here are a couple of articles at the site:
(15.1) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement
(15.2) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement - Part II
There is also an ongoing critique of Roger Nicole view that Calvin held to the limited atonement.
*Note: The Agenda of the author of Controversial Calvinism is worth noting. Here is an excerpt:
Yes, I have an agenda, and I want you to know it before we go any farther. Here, in bold print, is my agenda. I want my readers to accept that a 5-point Calvinist can say the following things:
God loves all men.
God desires the salvation of all men and offers salvation to all by faith in Christ.
Christ died for all men; he died for you.
The last item on the agenda is particularly important to me as it affects the way I describe Christ’s work to others. Though I am not and have never been the pastor of a church, I have had many opportunities to preach in churches over the past 20 years. Until a couple of years ago, I was perplexed about what to say when preaching the gospel. What do I say about the death of Christ? ...
(16) Another series that I just found at Strange Baptist Fire critiques Mark Driscoll. Here are the articles:
(16.1) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Introduction
(16.2) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Why Did Jesus Die?
(16.3) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Chart
(16.4) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Proof-Texts
(16.5) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Calvin Quotes
(16.6) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/limited Atonement: An Unaddressed Question
(16.7) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: “Reconciliation”
(16.8) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Day of Atonement
* I take it Mark Driscoll is a Southern Baptist.
(17) Unlimited/Limited Atonement @ the Christian Skepticism blog
(17.1) Atonement Category Error - Some comments on (17) @ Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics
(18) Karate exegesis [requested classic re-post] by Dan Phillips @ the world famous Pyromaniac
*Note - In the comment section, I strongly recommend following YNOTTONLY, i.e. Tony's comments.
(18.1) Dan's Karate, or Kah-rrah-tay? is Tony's blog, Theological Meditations. If you want a more comprehensive response to Dan Phillips post, please go here. There is also a wealth of historical research on the nature of the extent of the Atonement here.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Moe for Peno!
I just finished the anime series "Ergo Proxy". This is a thing to see especially if you are now burnt out with the whole anime interest as I imagine many are. The market has gotten pretty saturated with predictable tropes and there seems to be no expectation of avoiding them.
"Ergo Proxy" is not recent but it is breakout. Several of the typical themes in anime appear here. But there is still a greater and refreshing pitch in the execution and direction in this story. It is not a Gonzo product but it does use the latest in CGI techniques. The visuals are stunning and the music score production values are very high. The character designs are closer to American comic styles but are still well done. It is also important that they are not static. Changes in the plot coordinate with changes in the depiction of characters so that the design is part of the story.
There are several philosophical references but much of them are just for kitsch.
The supplements to the DVD indicate that the story was influenced by the turn to the "dark age" of comics in American comics. That's too bad since I have had it up to here with the Dark Age of comics, which seems to have reduced from striving for a sense of authenticity to a formula for a political platitude. However, that decline has not quite found its way into this piece which seem to reflect more of the original inspiration of that movement.
The story is edgy and hard hitting. It is not compromising, which makes this anime more tough than other recent eye candy. The story is fairly complete. There are refreshingly few danglers by the end of this than I have seen in a lot of recent anime. However, some moves still seem to be ad hoc to me.
Commentators speak well of the influence of dystopian nature of the story as if that were the reason to like it. It is dystopian but it trades most on striving being an original story and concept. The element of plausibility that is normally an important feature of a dystopian scenario is not so strongly highlighted here.
One of the things that I like in anime in general is the speculation about robots with a soul. That appears in different degrees of sophistication in many anime features. This anime features them also but without much speculation about their significance. But on the up side, it has one of the most endearing robot characters I have ever seen in an anime so far. One of the main characters is Peno, a robot originally designed as a companion android who gets infected with a computer virus that induces sapience and personhood in robots. But the important thing is the deep way this is portrayed in the story. I couldn't help but worry about this character and her fortunes in the story. What other anime accomplish concerning the theme of sentient robots by introducing exposition, this anime accomplishes in the Dickensian fashion of simply showing rather than saying.
For more details, see the link in the post title.
I have had to take seriously the belief that there very little chance that one is going to find the good stuff saving money. The best anime is often the BANDAI or GENEON which also is more expensive than ADVision.
"Ergo Proxy" is not recent but it is breakout. Several of the typical themes in anime appear here. But there is still a greater and refreshing pitch in the execution and direction in this story. It is not a Gonzo product but it does use the latest in CGI techniques. The visuals are stunning and the music score production values are very high. The character designs are closer to American comic styles but are still well done. It is also important that they are not static. Changes in the plot coordinate with changes in the depiction of characters so that the design is part of the story.
There are several philosophical references but much of them are just for kitsch.
The supplements to the DVD indicate that the story was influenced by the turn to the "dark age" of comics in American comics. That's too bad since I have had it up to here with the Dark Age of comics, which seems to have reduced from striving for a sense of authenticity to a formula for a political platitude. However, that decline has not quite found its way into this piece which seem to reflect more of the original inspiration of that movement.
The story is edgy and hard hitting. It is not compromising, which makes this anime more tough than other recent eye candy. The story is fairly complete. There are refreshingly few danglers by the end of this than I have seen in a lot of recent anime. However, some moves still seem to be ad hoc to me.
Commentators speak well of the influence of dystopian nature of the story as if that were the reason to like it. It is dystopian but it trades most on striving being an original story and concept. The element of plausibility that is normally an important feature of a dystopian scenario is not so strongly highlighted here.
One of the things that I like in anime in general is the speculation about robots with a soul. That appears in different degrees of sophistication in many anime features. This anime features them also but without much speculation about their significance. But on the up side, it has one of the most endearing robot characters I have ever seen in an anime so far. One of the main characters is Peno, a robot originally designed as a companion android who gets infected with a computer virus that induces sapience and personhood in robots. But the important thing is the deep way this is portrayed in the story. I couldn't help but worry about this character and her fortunes in the story. What other anime accomplish concerning the theme of sentient robots by introducing exposition, this anime accomplishes in the Dickensian fashion of simply showing rather than saying.
For more details, see the link in the post title.
I have had to take seriously the belief that there very little chance that one is going to find the good stuff saving money. The best anime is often the BANDAI or GENEON which also is more expensive than ADVision.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Double Intercession
It is interesting to note that there is a double intercession described in the Bible.
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us down here:
"In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express."
~Romans 8:26
And on the other hand, Jesus Christ also intercedes for us up in the Heavenly realms:
"Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."
~Romans 8:34
It's almost as if it goes from the Holy Spirit to the Father and from Jesus Christ to the Father.
I think that this has ramifications upon who our prayers are directed to - ultimately God the Father.
More on this later.
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us down here:
"In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express."
~Romans 8:26
And on the other hand, Jesus Christ also intercedes for us up in the Heavenly realms:
"Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."
~Romans 8:34
It's almost as if it goes from the Holy Spirit to the Father and from Jesus Christ to the Father.
I think that this has ramifications upon who our prayers are directed to - ultimately God the Father.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Islam, Dreams and Christianity - Christianity Today article
1) The following article by Stan Guthrie in Christianity is worth looking at.
Doors into Islam -
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2002/september9/1.34.html
If you do not have a subscription, you can click on the above link also.
2) Five Reasons why Muslims Convert
http://www.ctlibrary.com/le/2008/winter/9.13.html
—info from J. Dudley Woodbury, Russell G. Shubin, and G. Marks at ChristianityToday.com.
Doors into Islam -
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2002/september9/1.34.html
If you do not have a subscription, you can click on the above link also.
2) Five Reasons why Muslims Convert
http://www.ctlibrary.com/le/2008/winter/9.13.html
—info from J. Dudley Woodbury, Russell G. Shubin, and G. Marks at ChristianityToday.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
