Rob Bell and relative theology...

Here are some notes and thoughts from the inquirer's class a couple of weeks ago. It is so great to hear the creed explained in the same context that it was formed.

Creed: The Son of God, the Only-begotten
• John 1:18, 3:16
• Christ is not a creature
• However, the Father is the source, who is unoriginate
• Father and Son share the same life and love: perfectly.
• The only difference between Father and Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son
• He is the Word of God. This is synonymous with Begotten
• Speech is a symbol of our uniqueness. Matt 12:34. We speak out of the abundance of our hearts. It is wonderful to think that God wanted us to communicate not only with each other, but also with Him

• He is the perfect icon of the Father (icon of the Father). The uncreated Light (the transfiguration)
• He exists in the eternal NOW of the Father. Consubstantial. One Essence. Homoousias.
• Col 1:15

St. Athanasius has become more and more interesting and important to me. It is amazing to read about his life. Here are a couple of bullet points about him:
• Bishop in Alexandria
• Strong opponent to Arianism: Arius was a priest
• Often it was him against the “world”
• Martyred by being eaten alive by lions


An interesting thought that has been popping up in my mind is the unity of the Church. We know the passage in John when Jesus prays for the unity of all believers. I recently noticed something that seemed important to me in this prayer. He asks for all believers to be one as He and the Father are one. This makes me think that the "unity" of the Church should reflect the unity shared between Christ and the Father.

What is the nature of Their relationship? They are unified not just in thought and expression, but also in doctrine. Christ only did and said what he saw and heard the Father do and say. This makes me think that the Church should be unified in doctrine and worship! This also makes ask, "If there is no unbroken doctrinal chain back to the apostles, how do we decide what is essential doctrine that unifies?" There is a HUGE difference between oneness pentecostalism and trinitarian theology. Can these two groups truly be unified?

Who decides what are the essentials of the Christian faith? Let me leave you with a quote from Rob Bell. You decide if it's important or not. We can't sit by while people teach relativism and a social justice gospel:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?"

Lord have mercy

I read some awesome commentary on Matthew 13:3-23. It is the parable of the sower. Here is what Clark Carlton says in his book, The Life: The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation:

"God wants all men to e saved. He offers salvation to all. Yet it is up to us whether or not His grace will find fertile soil in our hearts in which to grow and bear fruit. Prayer, fasting, vigils and all of the other works that the Church prescribes [the idea of the Church as a hospital administering Grace to the Faithful] are not attempts to win God's favor, but rather they are means of preparing the soil of our heart to receive and keep the grace of God."

I thought that was a great thing.

Keep on truckin

At the last inquirer's class, we talked about the Son section of the Nicene Creed. This was very interesting. After discussing the importance of the word Lord, we looked at the three types of anointed people in the Old Testament: Kings, Priests and Prophets.

We looked at the symbolism of pouring oil over the head. It is interesting to know how important oil was to our ancestors. It was such a symbol of life, since it had so many varied uses. The anointing was a symbol of God's grace and richness being poured out on an individual.

• Kings
Before exodus, Jews were ruled by Judges. God was their King.
Jews start noticing that all the other cultures have an earthly king. They wanted to be like them.
Samuel warns them that they will be sorry for it.
Saul was the first king of Israel. Samuel enthrones him by taking a vile of olive oil and pours it on Saul’s head. After this, there is a promise that a greater kingship was coming.
• Priests
Function to be a type of mediator between God and people. They gave offerings and sacrifices. It was a relationship of life and death between God and man.
The priest’s ability to reconcile between God and man was limited in the extent and the duration.
Foreshadows the perfect priest. The one who will offer the perfect sacrifice once and for all
• Prophets
Anointed by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. That way they could say, “Thus saith the Lord.”
Not necessarily foretelling, but rather more often it was forthtelling: telling God’s will.
They were full of truth, yet they were limited. It was partial revelation.
When Messiah comes, all people will be taught by God. This is the perfect Messiah. John 8:28

Well, we'll see what this week holds.

Lord have mercy