(RePost)

1. Get baptized by the craziest guy in town.
2. Say and do things that are guaranteed to make religious people want to kill you. Repeat again, and again, and again, and again, and again - don't stop unless forced.
3. Do amazing things for people and ask them to not tell anyone.
4. Hang out with the most despised, marginalized, looked down upon, and shunned people you can find.
5. When possible, forgive and restore people, even if they betrayed you.
6. Live in a way that provokes gossip.
7. Win the most grace competition.
8. Keep the party going.
9. Serve people (note: nose plugs may be required).
10. If you're sad cry.
11. Empower people to do the extraordinary.
12. Act like a rock star in a hotel temple.
13. Radically simplify theology.
14. Break human-made religious laws. Repeat consistently.
15. Prioritize the most important over the important.
16. Let women with "questionable" backgrounds pay your bills.

This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

Book Review:

The Water That Divides (Mentor Imprint), by Donald Bridge and David Phypers

I have to say, this is an excellent book. It gives you the history of baptism and chronologically follows the changes of views on baptism throughout Christian history. Not only that, it gives you the context of the situations that played a role in the changes throughout the centuries.

For example, I did not know that the controversy between infant baptism and adult-only baptism goes back to the very earliest church fathers. The controversy is, by no means, a recent issue of contention.

I was also surprised to learn that the controversy between submersion and sprinkling is also not a recent debate; it goes back to the early church fathers as well. It is documented that they did both. For some early churches, baptism would often include exorcism as well as anointing with oil. You get the impression that baptism may have been unique to each group, maybe, based on their culture. You could make the case it is that way today.

This information has changed my point of view. Not that I have changed my view on baptism, but it has made me less dogmatic about my position. Many theologians, such as C S Lewis, G K Chesterton & James Packer, feel the different views should be held on creative tension and not destructive competition. I think that might be the answer. I mean, what about letting other explore the issue for themselves? Maybe a person’s baptism is part of their story, part of their relationship with God, and part of their unique journey and revelation.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas." "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." - Attributed to St. Augustine.

One of the important points brought out in the book was the use of the word sacrament in conjunction with baptism with the early church fathers. Because the term has very specific and legal connotations in ancient Latin, it may help us understand how the early church fathers viewed baptism.

The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentumj which in ancient times, it was a deposit of money for a legal case held in escrow at a temple or it was also an oath of allegiance for soldiers. In either case, the word sacramentum involved a religious ceremony in a sacred place. Augustine defined sacramentum as 'a sign of a sacred reality'. By the second century, baptism was called a sacramentum. This is an import fact in understanding the early Churches view and understanding of Baptism.

This early understanding of the word flows through even to today. In the sacrament of Baptism in the Church of England, the ceremony follows like a Roman soldier's oath of allegiance. The person performing the Baptism will say:

"Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified."

In reply the person being baptized will say:

"Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil, and continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of your lives."

This understanding of the word sacramentum supports the case that baptism is a response to faith in Christ and is a way people can signify their belief or pledge allegiance to Christ.

Does baptism have anything to do with a person’s salvation? If faith is most important why baptize?

To answer why we baptize is easy, because Jesus said too. (see Matthew 28:19) End of case on that question. However, it leaves behind an issue that many people feel strongly about. Mainly, that baptism, in some way, plays an important role in a person’s salvation. If the original meaning for baptism was that it was a sign or pledge, where did the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation come from?

Think of it this way, if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and savior and He says to go and make disciples by baptizing them, why wouldn't you? Baptism, then, is the obedience of faith so closely linked that you almost can't have one without the other. (Almost) Not that baptism bestows salvation, but that it is an evidence for salvation.

This intimacy between baptism and faith leads to some confusion. In the 12th century, sacraments, because they were so closely linked with faith, began to be described as a means of grace. This is often described as 'ex opere operato' or 'by the work being worked' or 'baptism saves you,’ which means that baptism automatically saves you. People often say that this is what Catholics believe. However, from the Middle Ages on, the Catholic Church has not held to this view. For Catholics today, belief in the doctrine 'non ponentibus obicem' (in case of those who place no impediment). This basically means that baptism brings God's grace so long as there is nothing to stop it, such as a lack of faith.

Thus, calling baptism a sacrament, gives us some insight into the intended meaning of those who used the word so long ago.

Investigation Baptismal Regeneration in Mark 16:16

I am going to look at a number of passages in their immediate context and then later in a broader context. I have to make a comment upfront and acknowledge that the authenticity of the longer ending or Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is questioned by many scholars. I do not intend to address this issue, rather, for argument sake, I will make the assumption that this longer ending is authentic. However, if we did find any significant meaning in a disputed section of scripture, we must be extremely cautious in building doctrine on questionable scripture.

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. (Mark 16:16) [Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition]

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - Mark 16:16 HCSB

Let’s take a look at this passage logically and see what we can determine.

1. According to Mark 16:16 who will be saved?
2. According to Mark 16:16 who will be condemned?

When you read this passage, you will note that the passage talks about those that are saved and those that are not (condemned) and that there is an imbalance in the statement.¹  The question is, did the author of Mark imply that both belief and baptism are required to be saved and not condemned or did the author imply that only belief was needed to be saved and not condemned. This, then, raises the question as to why baptism was mentioned. Many possible explanations can be given from baptism being our response to our salvation to a work out of faith. However, this passage does not address this issue and anything we propose is speculation.

When we take the passage and balance the statement in order to determine the intent of the author, we have one of two possible meanings:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned
• Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

Because the statement is ambiguous, we must infer the intent of the author from one of two possible meanings. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration (the need of baptism for salvation) will insist that inference A is the correct meaning. While those who support sola fida (salvation by faith alone) will insist that inference B is the correct meaning.

Because the author of Mark gives no indication in this portion of the discourse, we cannot assume either possible meaning. If we infer either possible meaning, we run the danger of putting meaning into the text or taking meaning out of the text.²  With that in mind, this passage by itself is neutral to either possible meaning. It neither supports baptismal generation nor rejects it.

To understand what God has for us, we will need to take the scriptures as a whole.³

1. This is sometimes referred to as a negative inference.

2. The general exhortation in Revelation 22:18-19 and the command in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 warns us not to add or subtract anything from God’s Word.

3. With the assumption that the Bible is God inspired we have the principle of non-contradiction. Meaning that God inspired the words in the Bible and as such there is a logical consistency across 66 books with over 30 different authors.

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." - John 3:3-8 (NIV)

I've wanted to write about this for awhile. For many people their only source of philosophy comes from the media. Their philosophy is built from songs, movies, TV shows, and the Internet. There is so much rich material out there to draw from. I will do a number of other posts on philosophical truths that come from popular culture.

"crawling in my skin, these wounds they will not heal, fear is how I fall, confusing what is real"

Can you feel the anguish of the author? Inside of them they have wounds that will not heal. I know what that is like. A pain deep inside that is like a cancer without a cure but death.

"there's something inside me that pulls beneath the surface, consuming/confusing, this lack of self-control I fear is never ending, controlling/I can't seem"

"discomfort, endlessly has pulled itself upon me, distracting/reacting, against my will I stand beside my own reflection, it's haunting how I can't seem... to find myself again, my walls are closing in"

"For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but I cannot carry it out. ...but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members... O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" - Romans 7:18, 23-24 ISV, NASB & KJV

"Thank God through Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, because with my mind I myself can serve the law of God, even while with my human nature I serve the law of sin." - Romans 7-25 ISV

"Therefore, no condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus, because the Spirit’s law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin’s domain, and as a sin offering, in order that the law’s requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those whose lives are according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those whose lives are according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those whose lives are in the flesh are unable to please God. You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Now if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you." Romans 8:1-11 Holman Christian Standard Bible

What is Palm Sunday all about anyway? Many know it is the beginning of the holy week (passion week) but not the significance of what happened on the 10th of Nisan.

“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household." - NASB (Ex 12:3)

“Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord" - NASB (Lk 19:38 & Ps 118:26)

This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:  “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your King is coming to you, Gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ ” - NASB (Mt 21:4-5,Is 62:11; Zech 9:9)

"Amazing love, How can it be, That You, my King, would die for me?" - Chris Tomlin, 'Amazing Love'

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. “For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.” - NASB (Lk 19:41-44)

Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. - NASB (Zec 14:3-4)

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” - NASB (Re 19:11-16)

And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. - NASB (Zec 14:9)

Since the early days of Christianity, people have made a distinction between how God acts in the Old Testament verses how He acts in the New Testament. Marcion wrote his Antitheses (= contradictory statements) contrasted the Old Testament God of wrath with Jesus’ God of love and mercy. He says that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament are antithetical, that is They are in direct and unequivocal opposition.

Some people today see it as an irreconcilable difference and thus use it to question the existence of God.

“All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave, because in him something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam." 1 Kings 14:13 NASB

“There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and  we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” – NASB Num. 13:33

Even Almighty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413099/) starting Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman and Lauren Graham, is actually a great movie. Generally when you have someone create a movie about God there is often major theological issues with it. Not so much with this movie. Some of that main themes are pro environmentalism and family and it is against government waste and corruption. The story is about Even Baxter a modern day Noah and his journey to build an ark. His wife ends up upset over his building of the ark and decides to leave when she runs into God posing as a waiter at a restaurant. One of his statements to her was so profound I wanted to watch it again. This is what he said.

"Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for the family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?"

I want to take some time and explore different perspectives on homosexuality.� I have not spent any time researching homosexuality from a Biblical perspective.� The funny thing is I know Christians who have good reasons to have opposing positions.�

I think that in today’s culture it is important to have an educated opinion on a subject that is causing a great deal of separation.� Currently, I don’t have an opinion only because I have heard very convincing and contradicting opinions from many Christians.� I really don’t want to take the easy way out and just except someone else’s opinion.

As I work through this, I will end up with a series of blogs and hopefully I will receive comments that will help me explore this issue in ways I would not have conceived.

Some of the issues I think that need to be addressed are:

• Is homosexuality a sin?
• Can you be a Christian and a Homosexual?
• How should Christians treat homosexuals?
• Should Christians enforce their morals on non-Christians?
• Gay marriage, the State’s and Church’s role in marriage.

�

Stay tuned for more posts on the subject and please let me know your opinion.� This is a very divisive topic and one where emotions tend to run wild.� My intention is to learn and reserve judgment until I feel confident I have an educated opinion.